list_clusters

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by specifying the fields included in the listing (availability, version, labels, capacity) and the 'all' scope, which goes beyond the annotations. No contradiction exists.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence conveys the action, scope, and output fields with no filler. Every word earns its place.

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 absence of parameters, the presence of an output schema, and the readOnly annotation, the description is complete for a list-all tool. It clearly names the resource type and the fields of interest, and the sibling context shows it is distinct from list operations on claims, sets, and other cluster-related entities.

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, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description correctly avoids inventing parameter details and the schema has no properties to elaborate on.

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 a specific verb 'List' with the resource 'managed clusters' and enumerates the returned fields (availability, version, labels, capacity). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_cluster (which fetches a single cluster) and list_cluster_claims/list_cluster_sets (which target different resource types).

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 'all managed clusters' establishes the tool's scope as a broad listing operation, implying use when an aggregate view is needed rather than a single-cluster lookup. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives such as get_cluster for detailed views or note when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full guidance.

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