list_deployments

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior itself. The 'List' verb implies a read-only operationched and the parameter defaults ('empty = all namespaces', 'empty = default') clarify scoping. It also lists the returned columns. Yet it does not explicitly state the operation is non-mutating or mention any edge cases like pagination or error handling, leaving some burden on the agent.

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 compact and front-loaded: it opens with the action and output columns, then provides a tidy Args block. Every sentence is useful, with no filler or redundancy.

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 listing tool with three optional parameters and no annotations, the description covers the core semantics: what is returned, parameter defaults, and scope. The output schema (if present) will likely document return structure. It does not discuss size limits or ordering, but these are not critical for basic 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter semantics. It explains each parameter: namespace (scope, default all), label_selector (filtering), and cluster (target, default). This adds meaning beyond raw names, though it does not elaborate on label selector syntax or allowed values, which are standard Kubernetes concepts.

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 specific verb 'List' with the resource 'Deployments' and enumerates the exact output columns (NAMESPACE, NAME, READY, UP-TO-DATE, AVAILABLE, AGE). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that list other resources like daemonsets, cronjobs, or statefulsets.

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 when to use the tool by matching the resource nameible 'deployments' and explains parameter defaults (e.g., empty namespace = all namespaces), giving context. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer a sibling tool like list_deployment_configs or provide exclusions.

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