list_pods

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this read-only, safe behavior without contradiction. It adds value by disclosing the exact output fields (derived status, ready count, restarts, node, age), which helps the agent understand what information will be returned. This goes beyond the structured annotations by providing the output contract.

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, well-structured sentence that begins with the primary action ('List pods') and then lists the key output fields in a scannable format. No words are wasted, and the most important information (what it does) is front-loaded. Excellent balance of brevity and information density.

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 straightforward read-only list operation, the description covers purpose, output fields, and the critical namespace scoping behavior (including the default). It does not mention pagination or limits, which might be a minor gap for large clusters, but the annotations and schema fill in the safety and parameter details. The description is complete for the tool's apparent simplicity.

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 covers 100% of parameters (context and namespace) with clear descriptions, providing a solid baseline. The description enriches the namespace parameter by explicitly stating that omitting it means 'all namespaces', which is not explicit in the schema. This extra semantic detail is valuable for correct usage.

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 it lists pods with derived status (CrashLoopBackOff, Terminating), ready count, restarts, node, and age. This specific verb+resource combo and the detailed output fields distinguish it from sibling tools like list_deployments or describe_pod. It immediately conveys the exact scope and differentiation.

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 by mentioning the namespace parameter behavior ('omit for all namespaces'), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like describe_pod or list_deployments. There is no explicit 'use this when' or alternative naming. The guidance is present but implicit, requiring the agent to infer the tool's position among its siblings.

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