k8s_get_network_policies

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

The description indicates a read-only listing operation but lacks details on scope (e.g., whether it lists across all namespaces when namespace is omitted), potential pagination, or required permissions. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only partially addresses it.

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 concise with two sentences, the first clearly stating the purpose and the second adding specifics about the output. It is front-loaded and contains no wasted words.

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?

The description provides basic information about the output but omits details on error handling, permissions, default behavior for the namespace parameter, or response format. Given no output schema, more context would be beneficial.

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 does not explain the parameters 'context' and 'namespace'. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description should provide meaning for these parameters but fails to do so, leaving their semantics unclear.

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 NetworkPolicies, specifies what they control (pod-to-pod and pod-to-external traffic), and outlines the displayed details (pod selectors, policy types, rule counts). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle other Kubernetes resources.

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 like k8s_describe or other resource-specific listings. There is no mention of prerequisites, filtering behavior, or contrast with related tools.

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