list_pods

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool lists pods and their status, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly mention side effects, error behavior, or limitations. The cluster parameter is explained, and the read-only nature is obvious, but deeper behavioral traits (e.g., what happens if namespace is invalid) are absent.

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 short and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose followed by an Args block with each parameter explained. No redundant information or fluff. It is front-loaded with the primary function, making it 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?

For a simple list tool with only two parameters and an output schema present, the description covers the purpose and all parameter semantics. It does not mention error conditions or what happens when resources are missing, but given the tool's simplicity and the output schema's existence, the description is sufficiently complete.

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 provides thorough semantic meaning for both parameters. For cluster, it explicitly lists allowed values ('local' and 'cloud') and their meanings, plus the default. For namespace, it clarifies the purpose and default. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 '列出指定 namespace 下的所有 pod 及其状态' (list all pods in the specified namespace and their status), which is a specific verb-resource-scope combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_pod_logs and describe_pod by focusing on listing all pods rather than inspecting individual ones.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like describe_pod or get_pod_logs. It only states what it does and gives parameter defaults, but no contextual advice or exclusions. Without explicit alternative references, the usage guidance is minimal.

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