List Kubernetes Namespaces

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It never states that this is a read-only listing, says nothing about pagination or result caps despite an allowLongRange flag implying a default range cap, and does not explain the default time window applied when no range parameters are supplied.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the primary action and the one optional refinement are both stated immediately.

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 9-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin: it leaves the agent without any explanation of the six overlapping time-window parameters, the default range and the long-range cap, or the shape of the returned namespace list. The schema covers parameter syntax, but the behavioral picture is incomplete.

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%, so all 9 parameters (including the from/to/around/window/startDate/endDate time family and the cluster discovery hint) are already documented in the schema. The description only restates the cluster filter, adding no syntax, defaults, or interplay between the time-window parameters beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (List) and resource (namespaces) with the tenant as scope, which cleanly separates it from dynatrace_list_clusters, dynatrace_list_nodes and dynatrace_list_pods. It does not explicitly name those siblings or explain how the k8s entity tools relate, so it stops short of a 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?

"optionally filtered by cluster" hints at one usage mode but gives no when-to-use framing, no prerequisites, and no guidance on when to reach for this versus dynatrace_list_clusters (which the cluster param points to) or the pod/node listers. Nothing tells the agent when this tool is the right choice.

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