List pods

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'List' makes the non-mutating read behavior clear, and the description discloses the main output fields (status, readiness, restarts, node). It does not cover error behavior or pagination, but these are minor for a simple read-only list operation.

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 with no filler; the action, resource, scope, and summary fields are all front-loaded. Every word contributes to the agent's ability to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it gives the operation, the namespace scope, and the key returned fields. It only lacks a pointer such as 'use get_pod for full pod details', which would strengthen but not block correct use.

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 already documents both parameters. The description adds only light context by tying the operation to 'a namespace', without adding meaning beyond the 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?

Defines a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('pods'), a namespace scope, and the fields returned. This clearly separates it from siblings like list_deployments, list_services, and get_pod.

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 namespace-scope context clearly states when the tool is relevant, and 'List' implies a plural/summary operation rather than a one-pod lookup. It does not explicitly name an alternative like get_pod for detailed pod information, so there is no explicit exclusion.

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