k8s_list_configmaps

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it's a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't specify whether it returns all ConfigMaps or requires pagination, what format the output takes (e.g., YAML, JSON, table), or any rate limits. For a Kubernetes tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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, efficient sentence that states exactly what the tool does with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable and understandable.

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 simple list tool with 2 parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it doesn't provide enough context about behavioral aspects like output format, pagination, or error handling. The description meets basic requirements but leaves important operational details unspecified.

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 100%, with both parameters ('namespace' and 'all_namespaces') clearly documented in the schema. The description mentions 'in a namespace' which aligns with the parameters but adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('ConfigMaps in a namespace'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from other list tools like k8s_list_pods or k8s_list_secrets by specifying the resource type. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from k8s_get_configmap (which retrieves a single ConfigMap), so it's not a perfect 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to use k8s_list_configmaps versus k8s_get_configmap (for single ConfigMap retrieval) or k8s_get_all (for broader resource listing). There's also no indication of prerequisites like needing namespace access or kubectl context setup.

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