deployment_list

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

Explicitly marked as READ, indicating no side effects. No annotations provided, but the description itself conveys the non-destructive nature. Does not mention pagination or auth, but for a simple list tool it's sufficient.

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?

Extremely concise: two lines of description plus parameter explanations. No wasted words. Front-loaded with '[READ]' for quick identification.

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?

No output schema, but description lists returned fields. Parameters are explained. For a simple list tool, it covers the necessary context. Could mention default behavior more explicitly, but overall adequate.

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%, so description carries full burden. It adds meaning: namespace is optional and defaults to all; target is required. This goes beyond the raw schema fields.

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?

Clearly states it lists deployments with specific fields (name, namespace, desired/ready/available, age). The '[READ]' prefix and resource name distinguish it from sibling tools like deployment_get or scale_deployment.

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?

Explains how to use parameters: omit namespace for all namespaces, target is k8s target. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives (e.g., when to use deployment_get instead).

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