list_cluster_management_addons

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which are consistent with the read-only 'List' verb. The description adds the fleet-level scope and mentions the install strategy as part of the returned information, but it does not describe return format, pagination, or any additional behavioral nuances. Since annotations cover the safety profile, the description adds modest context.

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 sentence of 12 words, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and contains no redundant or filler content. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 no-parameter list tool with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description sufficiently covers purpose and scope. It identifies what is listed and the fleet-level domain; the output schema handles return value details, so no further explanation is needed.

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 input schema is empty with zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. Per the baseline rules for 0 parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate; the description does not need to compensate for undocumented 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 uses the specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource as 'fleet-level add-on definitions (ClusterManagementAddOn)', including the technical type name and the fleet-level scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_addons_for_cluster which target cluster-level add-ons.

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 implies usage for fleet-level add-on definitions, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus cluster-level alternatives or list any exclusions. There is no mention of alternatives or scenarios where another tool should be preferred, so guidance is only implied by the resource name and scope.

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