List services

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the transparency burden. The description reveals that output includes type and cluster IP and that listing is namespace-scoped, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, how the context parameter affects target selection, or what happens for services without a cluster IP. 'List' implies non-mutating, but the behavioral details are sparse.

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 short sentence with no filler. It front-loads the main operation and immediately states the output fields, which is highly efficient for an agent parsing the definition.

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 only two parameters and full schema descriptions, the definition is almost complete. It includes output hints ('type and cluster IP') and states namespace scoping. It does not mention default context behavior, but that is minor and already captured in the schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already well documented. The description mentions 'namespace' as the scoping target but adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema and does not explain the optional 'context' parameter.

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 verb ('List'), the resource ('services'), and the scoping dimension ('namespace'), and it names the output fields ('type and cluster IP'). This makes it clearly distinct from sibling tools like list_pods or list_namespaces without needing to open their schemas.

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 context is implied by the resource name: to list services, select this tool. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance and does not mention alternatives or exclusions, so an agent must infer that it should use this instead of list_pods or list_events.

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