list_namespaces

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns 'all namespaces and their status', implying a read-only behavior, but it does not mention potential side effects, permissions, or behavior on invalid cluster values. This is adequate but minimal for a list operation, hence a 3.

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 a single clear sentence for the main purpose, followed by a compact parameter explanation. There is no fluff or redundancy; every sentence adds value. This is an ideal concise structure.

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 list tool with one parameter, the description provides the essential purpose and fully explains the parameter. An output schema exists, so return value details are likely covered there. It does not address error handling or edge cases, but these are not critical for a simple read-only operation, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema for the single 'cluster' parameter: it specifies allowed values ('local' and 'cloud'), clarifies their meaning (local k3s vs Alibaba Cloud k3s), and states a default. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this fully compensates, earning a 5.

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 tool's action: listing all namespaces and their status in the cluster. The verb 'list' is specific, the resource is 'namespaces', and it distinguishes from sibling tools like list_pods and list_nodes by targeting a different Kubernetes resource.

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 implicitly conveys when to use this tool (when you need to see namespaces and their status) and gives context by naming the target cluster. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the resource-specific purpose makes usage clear, earning a 4.

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