k8s_list_deployments

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a read-only list operation and mentions the ready replica count, but it does not explain namespace scoping, what happens when namespace is empty, how session_name is used, or any failure behavior.

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 focused sentence with no filler. 'List deployments and ready replica counts' is front-loaded and every phrase adds useful information.

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?

The tool has two parameters, zero schema descriptions, and no annotations, yet the description does not explain how either parameter affects behavior. The output schema exists, so return values are covered, but invocation context around sessions and namespaces is missing for a Kubernetes tool that must be connected and scoped correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented parameters, but it does not mention namespace or session_name at all. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, yet the default values ('', 'default') and their operational meaning are left unexplained.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('deployments'), plus a concrete detail ('ready replica counts'), so an agent knows exactly what the tool returns. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling list tools, but the resource type is distinct enough that ambiguity is unlikely.

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 implies the tool should be used when the agent needs deployment information and replica readiness. It does not provide when-not-to-use guidance or name alternatives, such as k8s_list_pods for pod-level detail, so the guidance is only implicit.

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