list_tenants

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses the main behavior (listing tenant namespaces and their PodSecurity levels) and implicitly indicates a read-only operation. However, it omits details like authentication, scope, or potential errors, though for a simple list these are minor gaps.

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 that states the action, resource, and a key output attribute. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It covers the key output aspect (PodSecurity level) and the target platform. It could mention scope (e.g., global vs current context) but is not critically incomplete.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaningful context about what the tool returns (namespaces with PodSecurity level), which is valuable since the schema is empty and provides no semantic cues.

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 action (list) and the resource (tenant namespaces of multi-tenant-platform), with additional detail about including PodSecurity level. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_tenant_pods or list_argocd_applications, which target different 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?

The description implies a clear use case (listing tenant namespaces and their PodSecurity levels) but provides no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, exclusions, or comparison with siblings. It is sufficient to infer usage but lacks direct guidance.

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