List Pods

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds genuinely new behavior: system downloader pods are hidden unless include_system, are free and cannot be stopped/deleted; secret values return null unless show_secrets, and read-only API keys return "***". It also explains stop_reason_code and same_node_unavailable_reason semantics for diagnosing stopped pods.

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?

Four dense sentences, each carrying distinct information, with the primary list-vs-single-pod distinction front-loaded. Some return-shape detail (endpoints, connect_credentials, MiB units) is packed into the middle and could be trimmed given an output schema exists, but nothing is filler.

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?

An output schema exists so return-value explanation is bonus rather than required, and the description still covers the tricky parts (secret nulling, system pod visibility, stop diagnostics). The only real omission is pagination behavior via limit/cursor, which matters for an 8-parameter list tool.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the load and documents six of eight parameters meaningfully — pod, workspace (id/label/"all"), status (filter), include_system, include_metrics, show_secrets — plus units for returned metric fields. The pagination pair (limit, cursor) is never mentioned, leaving a gap for a tool with a limit/cursor 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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('List the pods (GPU/CPU containers)') and immediately declares the two modes: list within a workspace, or show a single pod by pod_name/display name. An agent can distinguish this read tool from siblings like create_pod, stop_pod, or gpus without opening the schema.

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?

Explicit routing rules: pass workspace="all" to span workspaces, omit it when the user has only one; set include_metrics only for a single pod; use show_secrets with a single pod only when the user asks for the login. It even states the fallback behaviors (display name works as pod_name, labels work as workspace id).

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