k8s_list_ingresses

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'List Ingresses' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, output format, pagination, or error conditions. For a Kubernetes tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable. Every word earns its place in conveying the essential 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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for effective tool use. It doesn't explain what information is returned (e.g., ingress names, rules, status), how results are formatted, or any behavioral constraints. For a Kubernetes listing tool with rich sibling context, this leaves significant gaps in understanding.

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 adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying namespace scoping. According to guidelines, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 ('Ingresses'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It specifies the scope ('in a namespace'), which is helpful. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'k8s_get_ingress' or other list tools, which would be needed for a perfect score.

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 sibling tools like 'k8s_get_ingress' (for single ingress details) or 'k8s_list_all' (for broader listing), nor does it explain prerequisites or exclusions. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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