ingress_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the [READ] tag and the namespace-omission behavior, but doesn't mention pagination, output volume, or any auth/rate-limit context. With annotations carrying the safety profile, this is adequate but shallow.

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?

One short purpose line followed by a compact Args block. Every token earns its place; no repetition of schema structure, no 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?

For a zero-required-param, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, both params, and the returned fields. It's nearly complete; the only gap is the absence of pagination or result-size context typical of k8s listing tools with no server-side limit.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It documents both params: namespace (scope + omission behavior) and target (k8s config context). That's meaningful, but it doesn't cover format/type expectations or the default-null semantics — so it improves on the raw schema but doesn't fully compensate.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (ingresses), plus explicitly enumerates the fields returned (name, namespace, class, hosts, age). The [READ] tag reinforces the read-only nature and distinguishes it from ingress_get, which presumably fetches a single ingress.

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 namespace arg note ('omit for all namespaces') implies scoping behavior, which hints at when to use a filtered vs full listing. But there's no explicit guidance on when to prefer ingress_list over ingress_get, nor any statement of exclusions. Usage is only implied.

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