list_service_mesh_control_planes

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It states the resource and included fields, but does not describe how cluster/namespace parameters affect results, whether the operation is read-only, or any side effects. It is a bare list statement with no deeper 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 sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by a compact list of output fields. There is zero filler; every word earns its place.

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?

The core action is clear and an output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, the description omits how the optional cluster and namespace parameters interact with the list (e.g., does an empty default mean all namespaces?), leaving an ambiguity that could affect correct invocation. It is adequate but not fully complete for a tool with two filtering parameters.

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 schema has 0% description coverageional, and the description does not even mention the cluster or namespace parameters. While the parameter names are self-explanatory, their default empty-string behavior and filtering semantics are left completely unexplained, so the agent must infer their usage.

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 ('List') and names the exact resource ('ServiceMeshControlPlanes'), adding output fields (generation, version, readiness, age) that distinguish it from the sibling list_smcp_status. It is not a tautology and clearly conveys what the tool returns.

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 list_smcp_status or get_smcp_status. The description implies a basic listing operation but gives no context for selection among siblings, nor any mention of filtering or prerequisites.

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