List Gateway API Resources

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

The description adds important behavioral context: 'Read-only' indicates no side effects, and 'Omit namespace for all namespaces' clarifies the scope. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden, and it does so effectively.

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?

Two sentences with no extraneous information. The first sentence states the condition and action; the second clarifies namespace behavior and read-only nature. Every word earns 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 single parameter, no output schema, and a list of sibling tools, the description provides all necessary information: the specific resources, the namespace usage, and the read-only guarantee. No 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?

The schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter. The description reinforces the namespace behavior already present in the schema, providing no additional parameter-level details. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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'), the specific resources ('Gateways, HTTPRoutes, and GRPCRoutes'), and a condition for use ('If gateway.networking.k8s.io is installed'). This distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_pods or list_services.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool (when the CRD is installed) and implies namespace behavior. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use, but the specificity of the tool name and resources makes it clear.

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