storageclass_list

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

The description marks the operation as '[READ]' and lists return fields, adding behavioral context beyond the schema. However, with no annotations, it does not cover permissions, pagination, or error behavior. Adequate but not thorough.

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 two sentences, front-loads the read indicator, and concisely lists return fields and parameter usage. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.

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 the simplicity of the tool (1 optional param, no output schema), the description covers the key aspects: purpose, return fields, and parameter semantics. It is nearly complete, lacking only details on scope (e.g., cluster-wide) or filtering.

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?

The schema provides 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'target'. The description compensates fully by explaining it as 'k8s target name from config; omit to use the default', adding complete semantic meaning.

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 the verb 'List', the resource 'storage classes', and the attributes returned (name, provisioner, reclaim policy, default). This is specific and unambiguous, earning a high score.

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 includes parameter usage guidance for 'target' (omit for default), but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use compared to sibling tools like pod_list or service_list. Usage is implied but not clearly differentiated.

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