List cluster nodes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds useful context by disclosing what data the response carries (status, CPU, memory utilisation), though it says nothing about pagination or scale limits on large clusters.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The resource and returned fields are packed into one clause, so an agent can read it in one pass.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and rich annotations cover the safety semantics. For a zero-parameter read tool, the description supplies everything an agent needs to select and invoke it correctly.

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 takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for zero-param tools applies. The description correctly implies an unfiltered full-list call rather than suggesting any filtering options.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List all cluster nodes') plus the fields returned (status, CPU, memory utilisation), which tells an agent exactly what it gets. It does not differentiate against siblings such as compare_nodes or node_maintenance_status, so the boundary between this and related node tools is left implicit.

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?

Usage is implied by the scope phrase 'all cluster nodes' — an agent can infer this is the broad inventory call. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of the sibling compare_nodes or node_maintenance_status as alternatives for narrower questions.

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