list_hpas

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states a read-only list operation but fails to mention whether it spans clusters (via cluster_alias), the meaning of the 'default' namespace, or any permission requirements. The lack of clarification on cluster_alias behavior is a significant omission.

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. It efficiently states the action and scope, earning 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?

Given the tool has 2 optional parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits key context about cluster_alias (multi-cluster support) and the default namespace behavior. While the output schema exists, the missing parameter semantics and cluster behavior leave the tool insufficiently specified.

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%. The description mentions 'in a namespace' which hints at the namespace parameter, but does not explain the default value, optionality, or the cluster_alias parameter at all. It fails to add meaning beyond the raw schema definitions, leaving both parameters under-specified.

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 states the action ('List') and the resource ('HorizontalPodAutoscalers') with a namespace scope. It distinguishes from sibling tool 'get_hpa' which targets a single HPA, making the purpose unambiguous.

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: use this to list all HPAs in a namespace. However, it does not mention alternatives like 'get_hpa' for a specific HPA or any exclusions (e.g., limitations across clusters or namespaces). Guidance is minimal but not misleading.

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