List Temporal namespaces

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description contributes nothing beyond that — no note on whether results are scoped to the required cluster, whether the optional namespace acts as a filter, or what happens if the namespace does not exist. There is no contradiction, just no added value.

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 text is short but that is under-specification rather than conciseness — there is only one clause that merely echoes the title. Nothing is front-loaded because there is no substantive content to 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 listing tool with a required cluster selector and an optional namespace parameter, and with no output schema to describe return values, the description should clarify scoping and result shape. It leaves both the cluster scoping and the namespace-filter question entirely unresolved.

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?

Schema description coverage is effectively 0%: only the reused NamespaceName $def carries explanatory text, while the required 'cluster' parameter is completely undocumented. The description does not compensate at all, and worse, it says 'List' while accepting an optional namespace, leaving it unclear whether that parameter filters the listing or fetches a single namespace.

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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives such as namespaces_list or namespace_get, and no indication of whether the optional namespace parameter narrows the listing. The agent is left to infer selection purely from the tool name.

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