List deployments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of characterizing the operation. It clearly describes a read-only listing operation and adds a concrete behavioral trait: deployments are shown along with their replica status. It does not go into output shape or caveats, but for a simple list tool the behavior is adequately transparent.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and target resource, and every part ('list', 'deployments', 'namespace', 'replica status') adds relevant meaning. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 list operation, the description covers the what, where, and an aspect of the return content (replica status). Given there is no output schema, additional detail on returned fields could help, but the description is sufficient for an agent to reasonably invoke the tool.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents both 'namespace' and 'context'. The description only echoes the namespace concept in prose and adds no new information about parameter behavior or format beyond what the schema states.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('List deployments') plus the scope 'in a namespace' and a meaningful detail ('with replica status'). This clearly identifies what the tool does and is distinguishable from siblings like list_pods, list_services, or list_events.

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 purpose implies when to use it — when you want deployment information in a given namespace — but there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or why it should be chosen over sibling tools like get_resource. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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