list_services

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

Annotations are not provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It explicitly states 'Read-only query using CoreV1Api', making the read-only nature transparent. This goes beyond a generic action and is valuable for users.

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 yet structured with clear sections for overview, usage, and behavior. It avoids redundancy and fluff, with every sentence adding value. The structure aligns with the provided template, making it easy to parse.

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 simple list operation, the description is complete: it states what it lists, gives usage context, and clarifies read-only behavior. The output schema is not detailed, but the description mentions the fields returned (service name, type, ports). No missing context is apparent for a typical use case.

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 provides a full description for the single parameter 'namespace' (including default), yielding 100% schema coverage. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema; it repeats the same information. Per the rubric, high coverage sets baseline at 3, and no additional insight is provided.

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 action ('List'), the resource ('Kubernetes services'), and the scope ('within a namespace'). It also specifies the details returned (exposed ports, service types), making the purpose unambiguous. Sibling tools are listed, and the usage guidelines further differentiate it.

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 explicitly provides when to use the tool ('checking network ingress, internal DNS resolution, or service endpoints') and recommends complementing with list_pods. This gives clear guidance relative to alternatives, fulfilling the usage guideline criterion.

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