list_runtime_workloads

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'live state' but does not disclose read-only nature, pagination, performance, or any side effects. The description is too minimal to adequately inform behavioral expectations.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word is useful and no extraneous information is present.

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 tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description is reasonably complete. It mentions 'live state' and lists example workload types. While more context on scope or filtering could enhance it, it is adequate for a simple list tool.

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?

There are no parameters in the schema, and schema coverage is 100%. With zero params, the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter details, so it scores well here.

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 specifies the verb (list, implied by name) and resource (runtime workloads) with examples of types (services, containers, pods, units). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_services' by focusing on runtime state and including broader workload types.

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 usage for retrieving live state of workloads but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_services' or 'get_node'. No when-not or conditionals are stated.

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