vela_list_clusters

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, which already convey safety. The description adds value by explaining that specifying cluster_name returns detailed resource information, which is a behavioral nuance beyond annotations.

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 extremely concise, stating the core functionality in two sentences. It includes the API mapping and conditional behavior without any filler. Every element serves a purpose.

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's complexity (multiple parameters, output schema exists), the description covers the essential behavior. It explains the list vs. detail mode and indicates output includes resource info. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, though parameter descriptions are lacking.

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 must compensate. However, it only mentions the cluster_name parameter and its effect, ignoring other parameters like page, query, page_size, and response_format. This provides incomplete guidance for parameter usage.

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 tool lists managed clusters and optionally returns detailed information for a specific cluster. The verb '列出' (list) and resource '纳管集群' (managed clusters) are specific. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling list tools like vela_list_envs, the resource is distinct, making purpose clear.

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 provides clear usage context: use to list clusters or get details by specifying cluster_name. It defines the conditional behavior but lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives. This is adequate for a simple list tool.

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