List services

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds value by specifying what records are returned ('type and cluster IP'), which is behavioral information not present in the annotations or schema.

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 efficient sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, then adds the useful output details, so every word earns its place.

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 list operation with strong annotations and fully described parameters, the description covers the essential purpose, scope, and output fields. It is slightly incomplete in that it does not mention any output structure beyond two fields or note default behavior for the optional context parameter, but those are minor gaps given the schema already documents context.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so both parameters (context and namespace) are already documented. The description reinforces the namespace scoping but adds no new meaning beyond the schema, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 ('List'), a clear resource ('services'), and a scope ('in a namespace'), and adds the return fields 'type and cluster IP'. It is unambiguous about what the tool does, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling list tools (e.g., list_pods, list_deployments), so it stops just short of full differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus the sibling list tools or get_resource. The description implies its use case through the resource name, but it does not state context, exclusions, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer when this list operation is the right choice.

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