storageclass_list

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe, non-mutating read, and the '[READ]' tag is consistent with it. The description adds value by enumerating the fields returned, but says nothing about pagination, result volume, or whether it queries all 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?

Two short lines, front-loaded with the read tag and the resource, followed only by the one piece of arg guidance that matters. No filler sentences.

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 single-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, returned fields, and the sole parameter's default behavior. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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% — the 'target' property has only a title and a null default, no description. The description compensates by explaining that target is a k8s target name from config and that omitting it falls back to the default, which is genuine information absent from 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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('storage classes') and even previews the returned fields (name, provisioner, reclaim policy, default). The resource name alone disambiguates it from every sibling list/get tool, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with a sibling.

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 implied by the resource name and the '[READ]' prefix, and the Args note tells the caller how to select a cluster target. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of alternatives, and no prerequisites (e.g., cluster-scoped resource, RBAC needs).

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