list_crds

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

The readOnlyHint=true already establishes that this is a safe read operation, and the description adds the scope detail that all installed CRDs are returned along with served versions. It does not describe pagination, error behavior, or permission requirements, but for a read-only list tool with annotations present, this is adequate.

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 concise sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded. There is no redundant filler or repetition of schema or annotation information.

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?

The output schema and read-only annotation cover significant ground, and the description clearly states the tool's purpose. However, the required cluster parameter is undocumented and no sibling differentiation is provided, leaving an agent with moderate gaps before it can invoke the tool confidently.

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 for documenting the required 'cluster' parameter, but it does not. The parameter name offers some semantic hint, but the description gives the agent no guidance on acceptable values or how cluster identity relates to listing CRDs.

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 action ('List') and a precise resource ('installed CustomResourceDefinitions') with the additional detail that served versions are included. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as list_api_resources or list_resources.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_api_resources or list_resources, and no exclusions are given. The usage context must be inferred entirely from the tool name and description.

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