Lumino

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation by using 'List', but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or pagination. The return format is detailed, which adds some value, but key operational aspects are missing.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by concise sections for arguments and returns. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 low complexity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (detailed in the Returns section), the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, parameter semantics, and return values adequately, though it lacks usage guidelines and some behavioral context, which holds it back from a perfect score.

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 0%, but the description compensates by explaining the single parameter 'namespace' as 'Kubernetes namespace to query', adding clear semantic meaning beyond the schema's basic type definition. With only one parameter, this is sufficient for baseline understanding.

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 clearly states the specific action ('List all pods'), resource ('in a Kubernetes namespace'), and scope ('with status and placement info'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'list_namespaces' or 'analyze_pod_logs_hybrid' which serve different purposes.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it's clear this lists pods, there's no mention of when to choose it over other pod-related tools like 'analyze_pod_logs_hybrid' or 'smart_summarize_pod_logs', nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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