cluster_policies_list

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

The description only restates the read-only nature implied by the readOnlyHint annotation. It adds no additional behavioral context, such as pagination behavior or permission requirements.

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 very concise but at the cost of substance. While it is a single sentence, it lacks structure and does not earn its place due to under-specification.

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 has 5 parameters and an output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It does not mention pagination, sorting, filtering, or any behavioral aspects, leaving the agent without critical context.

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?

With only 40% schema description coverage, the description does not compensate for the undocumented parameters. It provides no information about parameters like page_token, page_size, or sorting 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?

The description 'List cluster policies.' is clear as a verb+resource, but it lacks any detail that distinguishes it from other list tools like clusters_list or jobs_list. It's essentially a tautology of the tool name.

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?

No usage guidelines are provided. There is no mention of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any context about prerequisites or exclusions.

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