list_configmaps

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states it lists ConfigMaps but does not mention that it is a read-only operation, whether any permissions are required, or if there are any limitations (e.g., pagination, rate limits). The output schema exists but is not described, leaving the agent unaware of return value structure.

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 very concise (one sentence) but at the expense of critically missing information about parameters and usage. It is front-loaded with the action and output fields, but the brevity reduces its utility significantly.

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 the presence of 3 optional parameters and an output schema, the description should at least mention that filtering by cluster, namespace, or label_selector is possible. The extensive list of sibling tools further demands contextual cues to differentiate usage. The current description does not provide enough context for correct invocation.

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 has 3 parameters (cluster, namespace, label_selector) with 0% description coverage. The description does not mention any of these parameters, leaving the agent with no semantic understanding of how to filter or scope the listing. Each parameter's purpose and possible values are entirely undocumented.

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 the verb 'List' and specifies the resource 'ConfigMaps', along with the fields returned (namespace, name, key count, age). It clearly states the tool's primary action and output structure, distinguishing it from tools that create or delete ConfigMaps. However, it lacks specific scope context (e.g., cluster or namespace) which might be ambiguous given the existence of sibling list 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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_secrets or list_pods. There is no mention of prerequisites, scope, or conditions under which the tool should be preferred. The description does not address when not to use it.

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