docs_get_clusters

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool does not synthesize (a key behavior) and that no API key is required. However, it doesn't mention side effects, errors, or return structure beyond 'cluster content', so transparency is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Every word adds value: the 'without synthesizing' caveat and the 'no API key needed' note are important. No fluff.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description gives a reasonable idea of the return ('cluster content') and usage context. It explains the workflow with docs_ingest_text. It doesn't elaborate on data structures or error cases, but for a moderately complex tool this is acceptable, though not exhaustive.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides; it only mentions 'domain's raw chunks' which is redundant with the domain parameter.

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 'Get topic clusters from a domain's raw chunks WITHOUT synthesizing articles', giving a specific verb and resource. It explicitly distinguishes itself from synthesis tools by emphasizing it does NOT synthesize, and mentions pairing with docs_ingest_text, differentiating it from siblings like docs_compile.

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?

It explicitly instructs to 'Use with docs_ingest_text to store the synthesized articles', giving an actionable usage pattern. It implies this is for when you want to synthesize inline rather than using an automated compilation tool, though it doesn't name the alternative. There's clear context on when this fits in a workflow.

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