list_installed_operators

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

The description indicates a read-only listing operation, which is consistent. However, it does not disclose behavioral details beyond that, such as whether results are paginated, limited to a specific cluster context, or how empty/default parameters affect the result. Since no annotations exist, the description carries full burden but only provides minimal behavioral context.

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, well-formed sentence that conveys the core function efficiently. It is concise and front-loaded, but could be improved by including parameter hints in the same space without sacrificing clarity.

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?

With an output schema present, the description does not need to cover return values. However, with two undocumented parameters and no usage or behavioral guidance, the tool description feels incomplete. For the agent to correctly use this tool among many sibling tools, more context on parameter behavior and selection criteria is needed.

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%, and the description makes no mention of the two parameters ('cluster' and 'namespace'). Without explanation, the agent cannot infer that these parameters filter or scope the list. The description adds no semantic value beyond what the schema provides.

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 tool's verb ('List'), resource ('installed operators'), and the specific return fields ('display name, version, and phase'). It explicitly maps operators to ClusterServiceVersions, making the purpose unambiguous and differentiating it from sibling tools that focus on other aspects of operators.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_operator_status' or 'list_subscriptions'. There are no hints about prerequisites, namespace scoping, or typical use cases. The description lacks any usage context.

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