list_pod_disruption_budgets

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It correctly implies a read-only operation by stating 'Lists', and adds the behavioral detail that it returns 'budget satisfaction status'. No contradictions, side effects, or auth requirements are noted, which is acceptable for a straightforward list tool.

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?

Single sentence that is front-loaded, efficient, and contains no filler. Every word contributes meaning.

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 list tool with two well-described parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers the core functionality (listing PDBS in a namespace with status). Minor omissions like default cluster behavior or pagination are not critical for typical use.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra semantics for the parameters beyond what the schema provides, but it does add context about the output ('with budget satisfaction status'). This does not directly enhance parameter understanding.

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 verb 'Lists', the resource 'PodDisruptionBudgets', and the scope 'in a namespace', with the additional detail 'with budget satisfaction status', which distinguishes it from sibling list tools like 'list_pods'.

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 listing all PDBS in a namespace but provides no guidance on when to use this over the sibling 'get_pdb_status' (which likely gets a single PDB status). No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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