list_addon_placement_scores

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only behavior is covered. The description adds a useful nuance: that scores reside in the hub namespace of the managed cluster. It does not go beyond this, but given the strong annotations, this is adequate.

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 compact and front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by a brief clarification of the namespace. The Args section is minimal and adds necessary semantic detail without redundancy.

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 read-only list operation with one parameter and an existing output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, and relevant namespace context. It is sufficiently complete without over-explaining.

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 provides meaningful context for the 'cluster' parameter beyond the schema, explaining that it is a 'managed cluster name' and that its hub namespace holds the scores. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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's action: 'List AddOnPlacementScores in a cluster's namespace.' It identifies the specific resource (AddOnPlacementScores), the location (cluster's namespace/hub namespace), and provides context ('custom scores prioritizers consume'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_addons_for_cluster.

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 a use case by explaining that these scores are consumed by prioritizers, hinting at when this tool would be relevant. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or when not to use it.

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