list_tkc_clusters

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

The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it specifies the exact response envelope fields, states that the Supervisor list is walked to completion so truncated is always False, and documents the deprecated 'clusters' alias. This gives the agent a precise model of the tool's behavior without needing to call 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 dense but every sentence carries useful information: purpose, response shape, routing advice, and a deprecation warning. It is front-loaded with the core action, and the details are logically ordered.

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?

Even with no output schema, the description fully documents the return envelope, pagination behavior, and how to proceed for more detail or access. Combined with the strong annotations and simple two-parameter schema, nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 the schema already documents target and namespace. The description only restates that namespace filtering is optional, adding no new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List TanzuKubernetesCluster (TKC) clusters, optionally in one namespace.' It clearly distinguishes from the sibling get_tkc_cluster by framing this as the listing entry point and directing further detail lookup to get_tkc_cluster.

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 gives concrete guidance: 'Start here, then call get_tkc_cluster for full detail or get_tkc_kubeconfig for access.' This provides context for when this tool should be the first step and which siblings to use next. It stops short of explicitly stating when not to use it, but the routing is clear enough.

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