pod_list

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

With no annotations, the description solely bears the burden. It mentions the statuses included but not any side effects, ordering, or pagination. Since an output schema exists, return value details may be covered there, but additional behavioral context (e.g., no mutations, read-only) is absent.

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. Every word contributes meaning, making it maximally concise for its purpose.

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 zero parameters and an existing output schema, the description is largely sufficient. However, it could be slightly more complete by clarifying that it lists all visible pods without filtering (vs. pod_status for a specific pod).

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?

No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100% (trivially). The description adds no parameter information because none is needed. Baseline for zero parameters is 4.

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 specifies the verb 'List', the resource 'pod', and the scope: 'every pod the API key can see' with explicit statuses (active, provisioning, stopped). It is distinctive from siblings like pod_status or pod_terminate.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. siblings such as pod_status for a specific pod. The description only states what it does, not when it is appropriate.

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