list_buildconfigs

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It simply states it lists all BuildConfigs, but does not mention read-only nature, how namespace defaulting works, behavior when the namespace is not found, or how cluster_alias affects the operation. This is a minimal statement that adds little beyond the tool's name.

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 short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core action and resource scope.

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?

While the tool is simple and an output schema exists, the description omits key contextual details: the role of cluster_alias, the fact that namespace defaults to 'default', and any guidance on multi-cluster scenarios. Given two optional parameters, the description is under-specified for effective tool selection and invocation.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain either parameter. It hints at namespace through 'in a namespace' but does not clarify its default value or the meaning of cluster_alias, which is completely absent from the description. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema 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 uses the specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource ('OpenShift BuildConfigs') and scope ('in a namespace'). This distinguishes it from related tools like get_buildconfig (singular retrieval) and list_builds (a different resource).

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 implies usage for listing all BuildConfigs in a namespace but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusions. It does not mention get_buildconfig for single-item lookups or note that cluster_alias can target different clusters.

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