List pods

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description aligns with these but adds context by specifying the output fields (status, readiness, restarts, node). It doesn't contradict annotations. The description is consistent and provides a bit of behavioral context beyond the annotations, but it doesn't disclose potential issues like the effect of the context parameter defaulting or any rate limits. Given the annotations cover safety, this is adequate but not rich.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes essential details (scope and output fields). There is no wasted wording, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, 0 nested, no output schema), the description is complete enough. It states what it does aligned with the annotations Dimensions and covers the key aspects: scope (namespace) and output fields. It doesn't explain return values, but since there is no output schema and the description lists the fields returned, that is sufficient. It doesn't mention pagination or limits, but for this type of tool, that's minor. Overall, it's adequate for safe and effective 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%, meaning both parameters (context and namespace) have descriptions. The tool description adds that the listing is 'in a namespace' and includes specific fields, which overlaps with the namespace parameter description. It doesn't add syntax details for the context parameter beyond what's in the schema. The description does clarify the purpose of namespace, but this is minimal enhancement; baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already covers parameters.

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 clear action ('List pods') on a specific resource ('pods') scoped to a namespace, including the fields returned (status, readiness, restarts, node). It is distinct from siblings like get_pod (which implies a single pod) and list_deployments. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from list_services or list_nodes, but the resource name itself is clear enough. The verb 'List' is specific and matches the tool name, avoiding tautology.

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 states when to use it (list pods in a namespace) and implicitly that it's a listing operation, contrasting with get_pod which retrieves a single pod. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it, such as when needing labels or filters, or when to use list_services or list_deployments. The mention of 'in a namespace' gives context, but there's no explicit alternative routing, leaving some inference needed.

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