list_builds

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read-only list operation and names output fields, which is useful. However, it does not disclose defaults, whether listing spans all namespaces or only the current one, pagination behavior, or any side effects. The word 'List' implies safety, but richer behavioral context is absent.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the action and key return fields. Every word earns its place and there is 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?

For a tool with three optional parameters, an output schema, and a sibling list of adjacent build operations, this description is too thin. It does not explain parameter semantics, scoping defaults, when to prefer this tool over list_build_configs, or how cluster/namespace interact. An agent would likely need to inspect schemas and infer usage.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining the meaning or use of cluster, namespace, and label_selector. It does not mention any of these parameters at all. Even though parameter names are standard Kubernetes concepts, the description adds zero semantic value beyond the schema.

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 uses a precise verb-resource pair ('List Builds') and specifies the fields returned (phase, duration, reason, age). It is clear about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling 'list_build_configs' or other build-related tools.

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?

No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_build_configs, get_build, or get_build_logs. There is no mention of when listing builds is appropriate, how the optional cluster/namespace/label_selector parameters affect scope, or any exclusions.

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