list_gitops_clusters

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the label-based filtering but doesn't describe what happens if no secrets match, whether it returns empty list or errors, or how namespace affects the search. The behavior appears read-only, but that's not explicitly stated.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and immediately provides the specific label selector, making it easy to scan. Perfect length for what it conveys.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 optional params) and the output schema presence, the description is mostly adequate. However, it could clarify whether the namespace parameter is respected when the label is applied, and what constitutes a 'registered cluster' (e.g., does it require a secret type). The output schema likely covers return format, but usage context is somewhat thin.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the cluster and namespace parameters implicitly (cluster is part of the resource, namespace defaults to openshift-gitops), but doesn't clarify how cluster is used (e.g., filter vs selection). The description adds some context but not enough to fully understand parameter usage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action (list) and the resource (ArgoCD registered clusters from Secrets) with a specific label selector. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_gitops_applications and list_app_projects by focusing on clusters, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the tool is for listing ArgoCD clusters, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like list_gitops_applications or get_gitops_application. It provides the label filter, which helps agents understand the scope, but no explicit exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.