List Clusters

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that a user access token and organization membership are required, that authorization is API-enforced, and that Role ARNs and secret credentials are never returned. It does not mention pagination, rate limits, or result ordering, which are the remaining gaps for a list operation.

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 markdown sectioning (Purpose/Returns/Auth/When to use) is well front-loaded and every section maps to a decision the agent must make. The Returns section is somewhat verbose relative to a list tool, but no sentence is wasted.

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?

With no output schema in the structured data, the description fully compensates by enumerating returned fields (IDs, names, creation times, lifecycle status, resources, pause/resume flags, s3_storage and database_s3_access metadata) and calling out sensitive exclusions. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents 'organization'. The description adds no syntax, format, or behavioral detail about the parameter beyond what the schema states; baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb (List) and resource (RawTree dedicated clusters) scoped to an organization, and the 'When to use' section distinguishes it from create-cluster by framing it as inspection before provisioning. An agent can tell it apart from get-cluster and list-organizations without opening any schema.

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 explicit 'When to use' bullets give three concrete triggering scenarios (which clusters exist, need a cluster ID/status, inspect resources before creating another). It stops short of explicit exclusions or naming sibling alternatives like get-cluster for a single cluster, so it is clear context without full routing.

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