list_clusters

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds a useful safety note that no tokens or passwords are exposed, which is a behavioral trait. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or that it returns cluster names/IDs, though the output schema may cover the return format.

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 that states the purpose and a key safety guarantee. No filler or repetition. It is appropriately front-loaded and structured.

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?

For a zero-parameter list tool with an output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. It could be improved by explicitly distinguishing from 'list_standard_clusters' and noting that it returns all registered clusters, not just standard ones. However, the name and sibling context partially fill this gap.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is already complete. The description adds no parameter-specific information, which is unnecessary here. The baseline of 4 applies because the schema covers everything.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all registered clusters'), clearly stating the tool's function. It implicitly differentiates from sibling 'list_standard_clusters' by emphasizing 'all registered clusters,' indicating a broader scope. The safety note about tokens/passwords is ancillary but does not confuse the purpose.

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 should be used when listing all registered clusters, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. No guidance is provided for when to use 'list_standard_clusters' instead, leaving the agent to infer from the sibling name. This is functional but minimal.

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