list_vpas

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation and the mention of update mode and target workload adds some output context, but it does not explicitly state side effects, scoping defaults, pagination, or permissions. It is minimally adequate but not thorough.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds meaning by specifying the resource and the key output fields.

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?

Although the tool has an output schema, the description is too sparse for a tool with no annotations and undocumented parameters. It omits parameter semantics and usage guidance, leaving an agent to infer how to invoke it correctly. The low complexity of the tool and output schema prevent a score of 1, but meaningful gaps remain.

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%, yet the description does not mention the cluster or namespace parameters at all. An agent receives no explanation of how these parameters filter the listing, what empty values mean, or whether they are required. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 identifies the resource (VerticalPodAutoscalers), the verb (List), and the distinguishing output fields (update mode and target workload). It differentiates well from sibling tools like list_hpas and get_vpa_recommendation by naming the exact resource and operation.

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 intended use is implied by the verb and resource, but the description gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives such as list_hpas or get_vpa_recommendation. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context cues beyond the basic listing action.

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