Argocd List Clusters

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond the structured fields: the cluster credential config is never returned, which tells the agent not to hunt for secrets here. It does not discuss pagination limits or result ordering.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler. The positive capability is stated first and the exclusion follows, which is a sensible front-loaded order.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields and flags the one thing that is withheld. Annotations cover the safety profile and the schema covers all parameters, so the definition is nearly self-sufficient, though it omits paging behaviour for a defaulted limit/offset pair.

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 100%, so name, server, limit and offset are all documented in the schema itself. The description adds no filter syntax, matching rules, or paging guidance beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List clusters') and goes further by naming the shape of each row (connection state, server version, app and cache counts). It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling argocd_get_cluster, though 'slim rows' implies that a fuller single-cluster view lives elsewhere.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb and the 'slim rows' framing, which suggests reaching for argocd_get_cluster when full detail is needed. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of when this is preferable to the sibling tools, and no stated prerequisites.

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