list_deployments

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

The description explicitly states that the operation is read-only and uses AppsV1Api, disclosing the primary behavioral trait. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, and while it could mention error handling or edge cases, the read-only nature is clearly communicated.

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 concise, with the main purpose stated in a single sentence. It is front-loaded with the primary function, and the additional sections are clearly separated and to the point.

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 description covers the purpose, usage, behavioral transparency, and even provides guidance on related tools when issues arise. For a simple read-only list operation, it provides all necessary context without requiring the agent to infer functionality.

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 already provides a full description for the namespace parameter, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description does not add any extra semantics beyond what is in the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 function: listing deployments with desired vs available replica counts. It specifies the resource type and the key information returned, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 usage guidelines explicitly state when to use this tool (verify rollout status, check desired scale) and when to use alternatives (use list_pods and get_cluster_events when replicas are 0 available). This provides clear decision-making guidance for the agent.

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