statefulset_list

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

readOnlyHint=true is already declared by annotations, so the safety profile is covered; the description's real contribution is disclosing the returned fields (name, namespace, desired/ready/current, age), which matters because there is no output schema. It still says nothing about pagination or volume limits on large clusters, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 compact blocks, purpose first, then a tight Args list. No sentence is wasted; the '[READ]' tag is mildly redundant with the annotation but costs almost nothing.

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 two-optional-parameter list tool with no output schema and no required params, the description covers the scope semantics and the return shape adequately. Minor gaps remain around pagination/ordering and what 'target' values are acceptable.

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 load, and it does document both parameters: namespace ('omit for all namespaces') and target ('k8s target name from config'). The target explanation is thin about what values are valid, but both params get meaning that the bare schema lacks.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List statefulsets') and enumerates the returned columns (name, namespace, desired/ready/current, age). It is clear enough to distinguish list from the statefulset_get sibling, but it never explicitly names that alternative, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Usage is only implied: the '[READ]' tag and 'List' verb signal a read-only enumeration, and 'omit for all namespaces' hints at the scoping choice. There is no explicit when-to-use vs when-to-use-something-else guidance (e.g., use statefulset_get for a single object).

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