replicaset_list

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It declares the tool as read-only via '[READ]' and lists output fields, which is helpful. However, it does not disclose any additional behaviors like pagination, sorting, or authentication requirements.

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 (two lines for purpose, two lines for args), front-loaded with the read indicator and core function. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 includes returned fields. However, it lacks details on pagination, default ordering, error cases, or prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid target). For a list tool, this is somewhat incomplete but acceptable for simple use.

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 the description must compensate. It describes both parameters: namespace ('omit for all namespaces') and target ('k8s target name from config'). These add useful meaning beyond the bare schema, though 'target' could be clearer about its role (cluster context).

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 lists replicasets and specifies the returned fields (name, namespace, desired/ready, age). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling list tools like deployment_list or pod_list, missing a chance to clarify unique scope.

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 by listing parameters, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs other list tools (e.g., deployment_list). No when-not or alternative suggestions are provided.

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