list_knowledge_clusters

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds value by revealing pagination behavior: the response includes `has_more` and `total`, and the `page` parameter is used to iterate. This goes beyond the schema. However, it does not disclose potential edge cases (e.g., page indexing default of 0 vs. the description suggesting 1-based pagination), which is a minor 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 concise and well-structured: the first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides essential pagination guidance. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple list tool.

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 operation, the description is quite complete: it defines the resource, gives pagination details, and references the response fields (`has_more`, `total`). An output schema exists, so detailing return values is unnecessary. However, the inconsistency between the default `page=0` and the described `page=1` page numbering could confuse an agent, preventing 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 schema provides only names, defaults, and types for `page` and `page_size` with 0% description coverage. The description adds semantics for the `page` parameter by showing how to use it in pagination ('pass page=1, page=2, ...'), but it does not explain `page_size` or its relationship to pagination. The explanation partially compensates for the schema gap, but is incomplete for both parameters.

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 tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'List knowledge clusters (KCs)'. It also explains what KCs are ('the groupings of knowledge bases used by the agents'), which distinguishes it from the sibling tools like list_knowledge_bases (lists bases, not clusters) and get_knowledge_cluster (fetches a single cluster). This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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 provides clear context on when to use this tool (when you need a list of knowledge clusters) and includes practical pagination instructions ('pass page=1, page=2, ... to continue'). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context and purpose are clear enough for an agent to select this tool appropriately.

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