list_cluster_claims

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

Annotations already cover read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context: the data is rolled up from status, indicating a data source and aggregation behavior. It does not disclose performance traits, ordering, or error scenarios, but given the readOnlyHint, this is acceptable.

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 a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the resource and scope, and contains no filler. It efficiently conveys the purpose and the returned fields.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters, a readOnlyHint, an output schema, and a clearly described purpose, the description is sufficient for a simple listing tool. It lacks details on ordering or list size, but these are unlikely to be critical for this straightforward operation.

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 has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100% (empty schema), so there is nothing to explain. Description correctly does not add param details. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and no deduction is warranted.

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 verb (list/retrieve) and the resource (ClusterClaims for every cluster), with specific fields (id, platform, region, version). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_clusters or get_cluster by focusing on the rolled-up ClusterClaims view.

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 phrase 'Every cluster's... rolled up from status' implies this is for a fleet-wide, aggregated view of claims, not per-cluster detail. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when to use this tool over list_clusters or get_cluster, so guidance remains implicit.

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