service_list

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares the safety profile, and the "[READ]" tag merely restates it. The description does add value by disclosing the returned fields (name, namespace, type, cluster IP, ports), which matters because there is no output schema. It says nothing about error behavior, scope limits, or result ordering.

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?

Two short clauses plus an args block, with the purpose and scope stated first and no filler. Every line earns its place and the structure is easy to scan.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully names the returned fields, the annotations cover read-only safety, and both parameters are documented. Missing only minor operational detail such as behavior on invalid namespace or empty results, which is acceptable for a simple list tool.

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% and the schema supplies only bare titles, so the description carries the full burden and mostly meets it: it explains that namespace can be omitted to span all namespaces, and that target is a k8s target name from config. The target explanation is a little thin (which config, what values), but both parameters are meaningfully addressed.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("List services") and enumerates the fields returned (name, namespace, type, cluster IP, ports), which lets an agent distinguish it from the many other *_list siblings such as pod_list, deployment_list, and endpoints_list. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative or contrasting sibling, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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?

There is no when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative, even though the sibling set contains many overlapping list tools. The only usage hint, "omit for all namespaces," is parameter-level rather than tool-selection guidance. An agent must infer the intended context from the tool name alone.

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