Список Kubernetes-кластеров

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds useful return-field information but does not explicitly state whether the operation has any side effects. Given that readOnlyHint is false, the description could have clarified that this is a safe list operation, but it does not directly contradict the annotations. The lack of explicit side-effect disclosure is a minor gap.

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 only two sentences. The first sentence immediately states the action and lists the return fields in a compact, informative manner. The second sentence provides practical usage advice. No unnecessary words or repetition of schema information.

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 list tool with two optional, well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description does a good job by enumerating the return fields and providing a usage tip. It could have mentioned pagination behavior (beyond the parameter descriptions) or error scenarios, but the essentials for an agent to invoke it are covered.

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?

Both parameters (limit, offset) have descriptions in the schema, providing 100% coverage. The description does not add any parameter-specific guidance beyond the schema. This is the baseline case where the schema already documents semantics, so a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool 'returns a list of all Kubernetes clusters of the account' with a specific set of fields (ID, name, status, k8s version, network driver, availability zone, CPU/RAM/Disk). It distinguishes itself from project-scoped cluster lists by specifying 'account', and from more specific cluster tools like 'get_k8s_cluster' by its plural list scope.

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 explicitly advises using this tool 'before operations on a cluster to get its ID', which tells the agent when it is appropriate to call. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'for a single cluster use get_k8s_cluster'), but the context provided is sufficient for a list operation with clear scope (account-wide).

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