pod_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered and the '[READ]' tag is redundant. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the returned fields and the namespace-scoping behavior, which matters since there is no output schema. It omits pagination/limit behavior for large clusters.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then args, so the important routing info comes first. Minor redundancy: the namespace omit-for-all rule is stated once in prose and again in the Args block, which slightly dilutes conciseness.

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 read-only list tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description supplies purpose, alternative, params, and return columns. Remaining gaps are minor: no mention of result size/pagination or other relevant diagnostic siblings.

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 full burden and does: it documents all three params, gives the label_selector syntax with an example ('app=web'), and explains the target default and the namespace omit-for-all semantics. Nothing is left undocumented.

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 and resource ('List pods') and even enumerates the returned columns (name, namespace, phase, ready, restarts, node, age). It explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling pod_get ('Use pod_get for full detail'), so an agent can route between them without opening schemas.

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?

Gives explicit conditional guidance ('Omit namespace to list across all namespaces') and names the alternative for detail (pod_get). It lacks guidance against other nearby siblings like pod_describe or pod_health_rca, but the core when-to-use is clear.

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