atlas-list-clusters

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., rate limits, authentication). It does not contradict annotations, but it also does not enhance transparency beyond the structured data.

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, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. However, it is so minimal that it borders on underspecification; a slightly more informative version would be better.

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 no output schema, the description should at least hint at what the response contains (e.g., list of cluster names or details). It also does not clarify the default behavior when no projectId is provided (lists all clusters across projects?). For a simple tool with one optional parameter, the description is incomplete.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter projectId, which already has a description. The tool description does not elaborate on how the parameter affects results (e.g., filtering vs listing all). Thus, it adds no extra meaning beyond the schema.

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 MongoDB Atlas clusters' clearly states the action (list) and resource (clusters). It is concise but does not differentiate from sibling tools like atlas-inspect-cluster, which also deals with clusters but in more detail. However, the verb 'list' implies a collection retrieval, which is distinct enough.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as needing a project ID, or that filtering is optional. Sibling tools like atlas-list-projects are relevant but not referenced.

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