list_service_monitors

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

With no annotations, the description carries full transparency burden. It only says 'List all ServiceMonitors in a namespace' and adds a parenthetical definition; it does not disclose behavioral details such as pagination, cluster selection via cluster_alias, error handling, or whether the list includes full objects or names only.

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 concise sentence with a clarifying parenthetical. It front-loads the action and resource, and every word adds value with no redundancy or filler.

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 two parameters, no annotations, and an output schema present, the description should at least explain parameter roles and selection context. It only identifies the resource type and namespace scope; it leaves cluster_alias unexplained and provides no guidance for effective use. The output schema covers return values, but this is still insufficient for complete context.

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% and the description fails to explain either parameter. The phrase 'in a namespace' loosely hints at namespace, but cluster_alias is completely undocumented. The description does not compensate for the missing parameter descriptions.

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 verb 'list', the resource 'ServiceMonitors', and the scope 'in a namespace', with a parenthetical clarifying they are 'Prometheus scrape targets'. This distinguishes it from similar tools like list_pod_monitors by naming the specific resource type and adding domain context.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_pod_monitors or list_prometheus_rules. The description only implies a use case by naming the resource, but does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tools.

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