get_namespaces

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

The description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the basic function. Since no annotations are provided, the description should convey whether the tool is read-only, requires special permissions, or has any side effects. It fails to do so, leaving the agent unaware of important behavioral context.

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 sentence that directly states the tool's function. It is concise and front-loaded, but it could benefit from a bit more structure or context. However, it earns its place without waste.

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 that the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete in stating its purpose. It conveys the core functionality, though it lacks some contextual details like return value format. Overall, it is adequate for a simple list query.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to add. According to the guidelines, 0 parameters yields a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed.

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 purpose: querying the list of namespaces in a cluster. It uses a specific verb ('查询') and resource ('namespace 列表'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_nodes or get_pods by focusing solely on namespaces.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or any context that would help the agent decide between this and other cluster-related tools.

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