list_resources

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description need not restate safety. The description adds that discovery uses apiVersion/kind, which is a mild behavioral detail. It does not mention pagination, selectors, or namespacing behavior, but the read-only annotation covers the main risk profile.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, and the key scoping information comes first. It is appropriately concise, though it leans toward terse and omits useful context that would not hurt readability.

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 tool has 8 parameters and zero schema descriptions, yet the description provides almost no context for how to invoke it correctly. An output schema exists, so return values are covered, but param semantics, pagination, selection, and when to choose this over sibling list tools remain unclear.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate, but it only hints at api_version and kind as the discovery mechanism. It says nothing about cluster, namespace, label_selector, field_selector, limit, or continue_token, leaving most of the 8 parameters semantically unexplained.

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') and a clear resource scope: 'any Kubernetes resource kind'. It also names the discovery mechanism ('apiVersion/kind'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_pods or list_nodes that target specific kinds. The generic scope is immediately apparent.

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 phrase 'any Kubernetes resource kind' implies this tool is for arbitrary resource types, suggesting it is an alternative to sibling-specific listers. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over list_pods, list_nodes, or get_resource, nor any exclusions or conditions.

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