list_namespaces

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

Annotations already mark the operation as read-only and non-destructive, which covers side effects. The description adds output details (status and age) but doesn't mention pagination, filters, or authentication caveats. Given the annotations carry the safety signal, a 3 for neutral value is appropriate.

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, lean sentence that states the purpose and output aspects without any filler. It is front-loaded and entirely relevant, earning a top score.

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?

This is a simple read-only list operation. With annotations covering side effects and the schema documenting the only parameter, the description supplies enough context (status, age) and does not require deeper detail. The tool is complete for its purpose.

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 has full (100%) coverage for the single 'context' parameter with an explicit description, so the description does not need to repeat it. It adds no new parameter meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 tool lists namespaces in the cluster and includes status and age, which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling list tools (list_nodes, list_pods, etc.) that target other resource types.

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 clearly establishes when to use the tool (when you need a list of namespaces) and given the resource in the name, no alternative is needed. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or direct to siblings for other resources, but the context is unambiguous enough for a 4.

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