list_clusters

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose the read-only nature implicitly ('List', 'Shows all clusters') and adds the health/connection status behavior. However, it doesn't disclose what happens with no registered clusters, whether there's pagination, or what the returned structure looks like despite an output schema existing.

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 sentences, zero waste. Each sentence earns its place: the first states the action and key details, the second reinforces the scope. This is a model of conciseness.

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 simple list-with-status tool and given an output schema exists, the description is mostly adequate. However, the undocumented instance parameter is a real gap that undermines completeness, and there's no mention of the health/connection status format or the kinds of status values the agent might expect to see.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate. The 'instance' parameter (ArgoCD instance name) is entirely undocumented in the tool description. The description doesn't clarify what 'primary' default means or whether there can be multiple instances worth filtering by.

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 states the verb+resource clearly: 'List registered Kubernetes clusters' and adds 'with health status' plus 'connection status'. This distinguishes it from the application/project-focused siblings (list_applications, list_projects), though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling alternatives.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It's clear that it lists clusters rather than applications or projects, but there are no explicit when/when-not conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions provided.

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