list_helm_releases

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already establishes safety, but the description adds valuable behavioral detail about the return fields (status and health values) and the cluster-wide scope. It does not overpromise or hide any side effects, and there is no contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by return-value details and a usage recommendation. No redundant or filler content; 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?

For a simple list operation with one optional parameter, the description covers the purpose, output, and usage context. Annotations cover the read-only safety, and no output schema is needed given the explicit field list. It is fully complete for this tool's complexity.

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 only parameter (namespace) has a complete schema description with 100% coverage. The tool description adds no new semantics for the parameter beyond confirming it filters results, which is already clear from the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 Helm releases in the cluster, with specific output fields (release name, namespace, chart, version, status, health). The verb 'List' and resource 'Helm releases' are specific, and it naturally distinguishes itself from sibling tool get_helm_release which inspects individual releases.

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 explicitly says to use it 'to get an overview of what's deployed via Helm before inspecting individual releases,' indicating when this tool is appropriate and implying the alternative for deeper inspection. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' statement, but the context is clear enough.

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