list_services

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive or safe. Listing fields gives some transparency, but lacks details on side effects or limitations.

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?

Description is concise, one sentence plus parameter list. No wasted words. Structure could be slightly improved with clear sections, but it's effective and front-loaded.

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 and only optional parameters, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose and parameter usage. Missing details like return format are covered by the output schema. Sufficient for a list tool.

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%, but the description compensates by explaining each parameter: namespace (namespace to query), label_selector (to filter), cluster (target cluster). This adds meaning beyond the schema types.

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?

Description explicitly states 'List Services' and enumerates the fields displayed (NAMESPACE, NAME, TYPE, etc.), providing a clear verb+resource. It differentiates from sibling list tools (e.g., list_pods, list_namespaces) by focusing on services.

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 explains how parameters affect scope (namespace=all namespaces, cluster=default). While it doesn't specify when not to use or alternatives, the tool's purpose is straightforward among sibling list tools.

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