list_clusters

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool lists clusters 'scoped to API Key,' which implies authentication context. It also describes pagination behavior and provides a detailed example of the return data structure, including fields like cluster_id, status, and connect_address. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation (though 'List' implies it).

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the example return structure is quite detailed (11 fields), which adds length but is valuable for transparency. The structure could be slightly improved by separating the example into a distinct section, but overall it's efficient with minimal waste.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, parameters with semantics, usage guidance, and a detailed return example. However, it lacks explicit mention of authentication requirements (implied by 'API Key'), error handling, or pagination limits beyond the example. For a list operation with no annotations, this is good but not exhaustive.

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 description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explicitly defines both parameters: 'page_size: The number of records to include in each response (default: 10)' and 'current_page: The current page number (default: 1).' It also provides usage context: 'If you want to list all clusters, you can set page_size to 100 and current_page to 1.' This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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's purpose: 'List all clusters scoped to API Key in Zilliz Cloud.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('clusters'), and clarifies the scope ('scoped to API Key'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'describe_cluster' or 'query_cluster_metrics', which would require a 5.

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 some usage guidance: 'If you want to list all clusters, you can set page_size to 100 and current_page to 1.' This implies usage for pagination, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'describe_cluster' (for detailed info) or 'list_projects' (for different resources). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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