list_clusters

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by specifying that the output is limited to items skipped due to duplicate contexts, but it does not describe return behavior beyond that, and no pagination or formatting details are mentioned.

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 entire description is one short, front-loaded sentence that names the action, the resources, and the condition. Every word carries meaning, with no filler or repetition.

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 parameterless read-only list tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and scope. It might have been slightly richer with a note about why duplicate contexts cause skipping, but nothing required for invoking the tool is missing.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for any schema gaps.

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 names the verb 'List' and specific resources ('contexts and kubeconfig files') with a precise scope: items 'skipped due to duplicate contexts.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list_* tools that list active resources, so an agent can identify what this tool is for without opening a schema.

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 a use case: when the agent needs to inspect kubeconfig entries that were skipped because of duplicate contexts. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over other list_* tools, nor does it give any exclusions or alternative tool names.

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