list_network_policies

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It states the read-only list behavior, the returned fields, and the namespace/cluster scoping rules. It does not discuss auth or error behavior, but for a simple list tool backed by an output schema these are not critical gaps.

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: the operation and output columns appear first, followed by two terse but complete argument definitions. 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 2-parameter, read-only listing tool with an output schema present, the description covers the tool's purpose, return columns, and both parameters completely. Nothing needed to correctly invoke it is missing.

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 parameter meanings fall entirely on the description. Both parameters are explained with their empty-value semantics, fully compensating for the schema's lack of description.

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 specific verb and resource ('List NetworkPolicies') and enumerates the exact output columns (NAMESPACE, NAME, POD-SELECTOR, POLICY-TYPES, AGE). This distinguishes it from mutation siblings like delete_network_policy without ambiguity.

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 Args section gives clear invocation context for both parameters, including the meaning of empty values ('all namespaces' and 'default' cluster). It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the list semantics and parameter defaults provide adequate usage guidance.

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