List Clusters

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden; it does imply a non-destructive enumeration by using the verb 'Lista' and it names the attributes returned. However, it says nothing about scope (all clusters vs. a single cluster context), latency, or permissions, and the return-field detail partly duplicates the output schema.

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?

A single short sentence that front-loads the action and then the payload attributes. No filler, no restatement of the title beyond what is needed.

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 tool with an output schema, the description is minimally adequate: the agent knows it returns cluster records with version/status/health. But with no annotations and no scope statement, it leaves the agent without confirmation that the call is safe and unfiltered.

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 takes zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to add. Baseline of 4 applies for a parameterless tool.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lista os clusters gerenciados') and previews the returned content (runtime version, status, health), so the agent knows exactly what the call yields. It does not differentiate itself from siblings such as cluster_health_summary or cluster_health_report, which cover overlapping subject matter.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no reference to alternatives. An agent cannot tell from the description why it should call list_clusters rather than cluster_health_summary or cluster_health_report for health information.

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