List nodes

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

The annotations already cover the safety profile: readOnlyHint and idempotentHint true, destructiveHint false. The description adds that the result includes readiness and kubelet version, which is some useful factual context beyond the annotations. However, it could disclose more: how result sets are scoped/ordered, and any dependency on a valid kube-config context beyond the default. Thus it passes the lower bar for annotated tools but doesn't go further.

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 one short sentence that carries the essential content: what is listed and which fields are shown. There is no filler, no restating of the tool title, and no repetitive phrasing. Every word earns its place, and the most informative element ('readiness and kubelet version') is placed right after the resource identifier.

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?

With only a single optional parameter, no output schema, and a straightforward read-only behavior, this does not require much more complexity. The description provides the key result content, the schema documents the only parameter, and the annotations cover the safety semantics. It could elaborate a little on the form of the response (e.g., a list of names with fields), but it is complete enough for correct invocation.

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 context parameter's intended use and default behavior are fully documented in the input schema. The description does not need to repeat that. The default-to-current-context detail in the schema already tells the agent what choosing or omitting the parameter does, so assigning above the baseline is warranted for a fully self-contained parameter contract.

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 states a specific resource ('cluster nodes') and a specific verb ('List'), and goes further by naming the exact fields returned (readiness and kubelet version). This is immediately distinguishable from the sibling tools, which all target different cluster resources such as pods, deployments, services, and namespaces.

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?

Usage is implied by the description: an agent can infer this is the right tool when it needs to inspect node status at the cluster level. However, it never explicitly names when to prefer this tool over alternatives (e.g., list_pods for pod-level health, get_resource for targeted details), and it gives no when-not guidance. This is exactly 'implied usage' rather than explicit usage routing.

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