List deployments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds 'with replica status' as a small output detail, but it does not disclose error behavior, pagination, authentication requirements, or side effects. The additional behavioral context beyond the annotations is minimal.

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 sentence of 8–10 words that front-loads the core verb and object, and the placement of the scope and output detail are efficient. No words are wasted or redundant.

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?

The tool has no output schema and simple parameters. The description states what it lists and that replica status is included, but it does not explain the output shape or potential failure cases, like what happens if the namespace does not exist. For a read-only list with full parameter coverage, the description is adequate but leaves some Return detail to inference.

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 schema thoroughly documents both parameters. The description echoes that it lists 'in a namespace', reinforcing the namespace parameter's role, but adds no extra semantics about the context parameter or parameter formats. This meets the baseline for a fully described schema.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'deployments', scopes it to 'a namespace', and adds a specific detail: 'with replica status'. This differentiates it from sibling list tools like list_pods and list_namespaces by resource type, and the addition of replica status makes the intent unambiguous.

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 its use case by stating what it does, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose it over alternatives such as list_pods, list_services, or get_resource. There are no exclusion conditions or references to sibling tools, leaving selection largely to inference from the resource name.

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