configmap_list

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

No annotations are provided, but the description marks itself as '[READ]' and lists the output fields, adequately disclosing the behavior for a list operation. No contradictions.

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 with a single sentence and a structured args block. The '[READ]' tag is front-loaded, and no extraneous information is present.

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 no output schema, the description explicitly lists the output fields (name, namespace, key count, age), which is sufficient for a list tool. It covers the main expectations.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning for both parameters: namespace explains omission behavior, target explains its purpose. This compensates for the schema gap.

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 it is a read operation to list configmaps, specifying the action ('List'), resource ('configmaps'), and output fields (name, namespace, key count, age). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like configmap_get.

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 guidance on the namespace parameter ('omit for all namespaces') but does not explicitly differentiate when to use this tool over siblings like configmap_get. However, the naming and read-only nature imply basic enumeration.

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