list_pods

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

Although no annotations are provided, the description explicitly discloses the tool's read-only nature and its behavior of omitting internal container state arrays while highlighting high-level phases. This gives the agent important transparency about side effects and data scope.

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 and front-loaded, with the primary purpose stated in the first sentence. The additional usage and transparency sections are brief and directly relevant, with no redundant or filler content.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. The description, usage guidelines, and transparency notes together provide sufficient context for an agent to decide when and how to call this tool 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?

The schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (namespace and label_selector), including examples, so coverage is 100%. The description does not add significant extra semantic detail beyond the schema, warranting the baseline score.

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 action ('List pods'), the target resource ('pods'), and the scope ('within a specified namespace'), along with the key returned attributes ('lifecycle phase and IP address'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_pod_logs and list_namespaces.

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 the tool ('identifying running workloads, crash loops, or verifying pod readiness') and when to use alternatives ('If troubleshooting a failing pod, pass its name to get_pod_logs or call get_cluster_events'). This provides clear decision guidance.

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