vela_list_clusters

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

Annotations already cover read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by explaining that specifying cluster_name changes the response to a single cluster's details, and it includes the corresponding API endpoint. It does not contradict the 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 exceptionally concise: two short sentences that front-load the main action and then provide the minimal API mapping. Every word earns its place with no redundant filler.

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?

The description adequately covers the tool's core purpose and dual-mode behavior, and an output schema exists to handle return values. However, it omits pagination semantics and the response_format option, which are relevant for an agent deciding how to invoke the tool effectively.

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 only 40%, and the description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond reinforcing cluster_name. Pagination parameters (page, page_size) and response_format are not explained in the description, leaving the agent to infer their behavior from defaults and schema structure alone.

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, when cluster_name is provided, returns detailed resource information for that cluster. It uses a specific verb plus resource and distinguishes this from sibling list tools like vela_list_applications.

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 conveys the two primary usage modes: list all clusters when no cluster_name is given, and view a specific cluster's details when it is supplied. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the tool's uniqueness among siblings makes the context clear.

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