ingress_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions the return type ('List of Ingress basic information') but lacks details on permissions needed, rate limits, pagination, error conditions, or what 'basic information' entails. For a read operation in Kubernetes, this leaves significant gaps.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by clear sections for arguments and returns. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

For a simple list operation with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basics (purpose, args, returns) but lacks depth. Without annotations, it should ideally mention safety (read-only), typical use cases, or error handling to be more complete, though it's minimally adequate.

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 includes an 'Args' section that names and briefly explains both parameters ('context_name' and 'namespace'). This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't specify format constraints (e.g., namespace naming rules) or examples.

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 all Ingresses') and resource ('in a given namespace'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'ingress_get' or 'list_namespace_resources', which prevents a perfect score.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'ingress_get' (for specific Ingress details) or 'list_namespace_resources' (for broader resource listing). The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate.

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