list_hosted_clusters

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds important behavioral context: HostedCluster objects live on the control-plane-hosting cluster, and if hosted elsewhere, 'this reports that clearly.' While the exact reporting behavior is vague, it does disclose a key limitation beyond the annotations. The namespace semantics are also disclosed.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a parameter note, and a context paragraph explaining edge cases. Every sentence adds value, though the phrase 'this reports that clearly' is slightly vague and could be expanded or removed without loss of conciseness.

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 simple read-only list tool with one parameter, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description covers the tool's purpose, usage condition, parameter semantics, and the key edge case of remote management clusters. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden for the only parameter. The 'Args' section explicitly states 'namespace: limit to one namespace; empty lists across all namespaces,' giving clear meaning beyond the schema's default value. This fully compensates for the missing schema description.

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 'List HyperShift HostedClusters' with a specific scope condition 'when the hub is the HCP hosting cluster.' This clearly identifies the verb, resource, and distinguishing context from sibling tools like list_clusters.

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 explicitly explains when to use this tool: when the hub hosts the HCP control plane. It also names the alternative: 'the spokes still appear via list_clusters,' and clarifies the namespace behavior. This provides direct guidance on when to pick this tool versus siblings.

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