List Clusters

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: it discloses required authentication, organization membership, authorization enforcement, sensitive fields never returned, and null/empty-path semantics. It does not mention pagination or ordering, but the read-only nature is clear from 'List'.

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 front-loaded with purpose, then return behavior, auth, and use cases. The return details are lengthy but justified because no output schema exists, and every section is relevant.

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 one-parameter read tool with no annotations or output schema, the description supplies the return shape, security constraints, auth requirements, and selection guidance. It is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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 single parameter is fully documented by the schema, which already states it is the organization whose clusters are listed. The description adds auth context but no format or identifier details beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb and resource: it lists dedicated clusters, scoped to an organization. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling get-cluster, but the scope and purpose are 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 'When to use' bullets give clear contexts for selecting this tool, including finding cluster IDs, checking lifecycle status, and inspecting resources before creating another cluster. It does not explicitly state when to use get-cluster instead.

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