list_resources

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: it returns 'compact Kubernetes-shaped rows plus summaryContext by default (managedBy, health, issueCount)' and mentions a 'context' parameter option for 'none' to get bare rows. This goes beyond the annotation by clarifying the output shape and default enrichment, though it omits details like pagination or limits.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with a clear use case, then output shape, then alternatives. No wasted words; 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?

With no output schema, the description adequately covers the return format (compact rows + summaryContext fields). It also provides usage boundaries. Slight gap: no mention of pagination, sorting, or error cases, but for a list tool with a moderate complexity this is reasonably 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% (all 4 parameters have descriptions). The description adds nominal value by naming example kinds ('pods/po, deployments/deploy...') and mentioning the default context behavior, but the schema already captures this. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the heavy lifting.

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 a specific verb ('list') and resource scope ('jq-like namespace sweep' for known resource kinds like pods/deployments/services). It also distinguishes from siblings by explicitly naming get_resource as a follow-up and search for unknown kind/name searches.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use: 'when you know the resource kind' and 'before calling get_resource' to compare many similar resources. Also gives exclusions: 'For unknown kind/name searches, use search' and 'For broad health triage, use get_dashboard or issues first.' This is exemplary usage guidance.

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