namespace_list

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

The [READ] tag indicates read-only behavior, but no further transparency is provided (e.g., return format, pagination, limits). With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and could disclose more behavioral traits.

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 sentences without wasted words. The [READ] prefix and parameter description are front-loaded, making the tool's purpose immediately clear.

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 simple list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and parameter. It lists returned fields, which is helpful. Could mention standard list behavior (e.g., returns all namespaces), but still fairly complete.

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 clear meaning to the only parameter (target), explaining its purpose and default behavior. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this is valuable context beyond the schema.

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 lists namespaces and specifies the returned fields (name, phase, age). The [READ] prefix and resource name distinguish it from sibling tools like pod_list or service_list.

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 implies usage for listing namespaces but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to siblings. The target parameter is explained, but no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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