infomaniak_list_public_cloud_kubernetes_services

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds a behavioral nuance—listing globally or filtered by project—which is not present in annotations. This is useful context beyond the structured hints, though it does not describe pagination, permissions, or response specifics.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently communicates the core action and the key scope variation. 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 list operation with only two parameters, read-only annotations, and an output schema present, the description adequately covers the necessary context. The scope options are clear, and the output schema handles return-value details, so no additional explanation is needed.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does hint that project_id is optional (via 'globally or within a project') and that public_cloud_id is the cloud identifier, but it does not explicitly explain either parameter's role or format. The names are self-explanatory, but the description offers limited added value over 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('Public Cloud Kubernetes services') and explicitly specifies the scope ('globally or within a project'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_public_cloud_database_services and get_public_cloud_kubernetes_service.

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 provides context on the two modes of operation (global vs project-scoped) but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as get_public_cloud_kubernetes_service or other list tools. The usage is implied by the verb 'List', but no clear when/when-not guidance is offered.

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