list_prometheus_rules

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explain whether the listing spans all namespaces when namespace is empty, whether cluster must be a context name or resource label, or whether pagination or limits apply. 'List' implies read-only, but important scoping behavior is undisclosed.

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 one concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and result. There is no filler or redundant wording; it is appropriately sized for a simple list operation.

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 no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the meaning of 'per resource', how the optional parameters scope the result, or how this differs from similar monitoring tools like list_alerting_rules and list_alerts. The output schema exists, so return format is covered, but the operational context is lacking.

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 does not mention the cluster or namespace parameters at all. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description adds no meaning beyond the schema fields, and it fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, such as how cluster/namespace filters are applied.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List PrometheusRules' with a defined output shape ('counts of alerting rules and recording rules per resource'). This is clear and largely distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_alerts or list_alerting_rules, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 about when to use this tool versus related tools such as list_alerting_rules, list_alerts, or query_prometheus. The intended use is only implied by the name and one-line description, with no exclusions or alternatives mentioned.

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