k8s_list_pods

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but lacks critical details: it doesn't mention that this is a read-only operation (implied by 'List'), what permissions are needed, whether it returns live or cached data, the output format (e.g., JSON table), pagination handling, or error conditions like invalid namespaces. The description is too sparse for a tool interacting with a complex system like Kubernetes.

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 front-loads the core functionality ('List pods') and specifies the scope. There is no wasted verbiage, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 the complexity of Kubernetes operations and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like safety (read-only), authentication needs, rate limits, or output structure. For a tool with three parameters and no structured output definition, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 description mentions 'namespace or all namespaces', which aligns with the 'namespace' and 'all_namespaces' parameters in the schema, but adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides (schema description coverage is 100%). It doesn't explain the 'label_selector' parameter at all. Since the schema fully documents all parameters, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate—the description adds minimal value here.

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 ('pods') with scope ('in a namespace or all namespaces'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'k8s_get_pod' (which likely retrieves a single pod) or 'k8s_top_pods' (which shows resource usage), but the listing function is unambiguous.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention when to prefer 'k8s_list_pods' over 'k8s_get_pod' (for a single pod) or 'k8s_top_pods' (for performance metrics), nor does it specify prerequisites like requiring cluster access or kubectl configuration.

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