Kubernetes-кластеры проекта

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic action. Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and destructiveHint flags, but the description does not elaborate on anything like pagination, authentication, or side effects. Since 'list' implies a read operation but the annotation readOnlyHint is false, there is potential confusion, though the description itself does not explicitly contradict the annotation.

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 sentence with no extraneous information. It is front-loaded, directly stating the function and scope. This is an appropriately minimal description for a simple list operation.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, and the description covers the essential purpose. However, it lacks differentiation from sibling tools and does not clarify return format or any special behavior. Given the presence of many similar list tools, the description is adequate but leaves gaps for an agent to select unambiguously.

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 100%, with a single required parameter 'project_id' described as 'ОБЯЗАТЕЛЬНОЕ ПОЛЕ - ID проекта'. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 'Список k8s-кластеров в указанном проекте' clearly states the action (list), the resource (k8s clusters), and the scope (specified project). It is specific and uses a distinct verb+resource pattern, though it does not explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'list_all_project_clusters' or 'list_k8s_clusters'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, preferred contexts, or relationships to other list tools among the many siblings. The description simply states what it does without any contextual usage hints.

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