find_orphaned_services

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the meaningful semantic that matching is selector-based against *running* pods (so a service with only pending/crashed pods counts as orphaned), but it says nothing about read-only behaviour, cluster-wide vs per-namespace scope, or what the result looks like.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the discriminating condition, with no filler. Nothing to trim.

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 one-parameter read tool this is close to sufficient, but with no output schema the description never indicates what comes back (service names? namespaces? selector details?) or that the operation is non-mutating, leaving the agent to guess at the response shape.

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% for the single optional `namespace` parameter, and the description adds nothing about it. Baseline 3 applies; the description neither clarifies default scoping nor whether omitting the parameter aggregates across namespaces beyond the schema's 'default' note.

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?

States a specific verb and resource plus the exact detection criterion: services whose label selectors match no running pods. That distinguishes it from the neighbouring check_service_endpoints (endpoint-based) and trace_service_to_pods (selector-to-pod tracing), though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

There is no 'use this when...' framing, no exclusions, and no reference to any of the 18 sibling tools. The agent must infer that this is a diagnostic for services that shouldn't receive traffic.

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