k8s_get_storage_classes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It explains what information is returned (provisioner, reclaim policy, etc.) but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, required permissions, or side effects. The description is adequate but lacks depth.

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, concise sentence that conveys the tool's functionality without extraneous words. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It states what is listed and the fields included. However, it could be improved by mentioning the return format (e.g., array of objects) or providing an example.

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 input schema has one required parameter 'context' with no description coverage (0%). The description does not explain what 'context' means, how it is used, or its expected values. Given that the schema coverage is zero, the description fails to add any meaning to the parameter.

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 StorageClasses and specifies the fields returned (provisioner, reclaim policy, volume binding mode, default class). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like k8s_get_nodes or k8s_get_resources by focusing on a specific resource type.

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?

The description implies the tool is for listing StorageClasses, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., k8s_get_resources). No when-not-to-use or context is given.

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