list_clusters

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It does state the access scope (user-accessible clusters), which is useful, but it does not mention whether it's a read-only operation, any potential side effects, rate limits, or response behavior. For a list operation, the lack of explicit read-only confirmation and pagination details is a gap.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the verb 'List' and the resource 'clusters'. Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary detail.

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 zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description is adequate: it defines the scope ('all clusters the user can access') and is simple enough that the missing details (pagination, return format) are likely not critical. However, the lack of any behavioral context, such as whether an empty list is returned or if authentication is required, keeps it from a perfect score.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100% (an empty object), so the description has no need to explain parameters. The baseline for 0 params is 4; the description does not add anything beyond the schema, but no compensation is needed.

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 the action (list) and the resource (clusters), and adds the scope 'the user can access', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_cluster_nodes (which lists nodes) and list_kubernetes_clusters (which lists a specific type). Purpose is unambiguous.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_organizations or list_kubernetes_clusters. The intended use is only implied by the phrase 'clusters the user can access', but no exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned.

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