List namespaces

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations by noting that namespaces outside the allowlist are filtered out, which is an important result-scoping behavior for an agent and is not expressed in the structured fields.

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 two short sentences: the first states the core operation, the second adds the crucial filtering constraint. It is front-loaded, has no redundant phrases, and every word contributes.

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 simple, read-only listing tool with one optional, fully documented parameter and strong annotations, the description covers the operational context. It tells the agent the cluster scope and the allowlist filtering, which is the only non-obvious behavior; no output schema means the tool's list-return nature is self-evident from the name and description.

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 single optional 'context' parameter is fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information, and the baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the documentation burden.

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 namespaces') and immediately identifies scope ('in the cluster') and the allowlist filtering behavior. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_deployments, list_services, and list_contexts.

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 when to use this tool (when you need the list of allowed namespaces in the cluster) but does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not guidance. The allowlisting note provides some contextual usage information, but no direct comparison to sibling tools.

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