k8s_get_contexts

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that it lists from all kubeconfig files and returns context names. It does not mention duplicate handling or current context indication, but for a read-only list, it's fairly transparent.

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?

Three sentences, no fluff. The key information is front-loaded: what it does, output, and a note about partial matching in other commands. Every sentence earns its place.

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 parameters, no output schema, and a simple list operation, the description is sufficient. It explains the scope (all kubeconfig files) and output (context names). Could hint at what 'all kubeconfig files' means, but overall complete.

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?

No parameters exist, so the description adds no parameter info. Per guidelines, 0 parameters baseline is 4, and the description appropriately avoids extraneous detail.

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 tool lists all available Kubernetes contexts from all kubeconfig files, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings that deal with namespaces, nodes, etc., by focusing on contexts.

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?

It mentions that returned context names can be used with other tools, implying usage for context selection. While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use, the narrow scope makes the intent clear. No sibling comparison beyond context vs. other resources.

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