list_chaos

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

Description implies a read-only list operation, but no annotations exist. It adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., auth requirements, rate limits) beyond the obvious read nature. Adequate for a simple list but not rich.

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?

One sentence, direct and front-loaded with action and resource. 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 (1 parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential: what it lists and the namespace. Could mention if there are additional filters or output format, but overall adequate.

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 single required parameter 'namespace' has no schema description (0% coverage). The description mentions '指定命名空间' (specified namespace), providing minimal context that ties the parameter to the list scope. Partially compensates but could elaborate on namespace format or constraints.

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?

Description clearly states the verb (list), resource types (PodChaos, NetworkChaos, StressChaos), and scope (specified namespace). It differentiates from sibling tools like get_pods or delete_chaos.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Does not specify context such as 'use for listing chaos resources, not regular pods' or exclude other scenarios.

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