List Deployments

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

Annotations already provide the key behavioral safety profile: readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds the namespace scoping but does not disclose additional behavioral details like pagination, return format, or semantics of an omitted namespace. This is acceptable but not additive beyond what annotations already establish.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action and scope immediately and every word earns its place, making it highly concise for a one-parameter tool.

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 tool with annotations covering safety, the description is mostly adequate. However, with no output schema and no explanation of the namespace default (null), an agent cannot fully determine the behavior when no namespace is supplied, leaving a meaningful completeness gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the namespace parameter, but it does not explain the nullable default or what happens when namespace is omitted. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description only says 'specified namespace,' which actually implies the parameter is required when the schema marks it optional.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List all deployments in a specified namespace.' It clearly names the resource (deployments), the action (list), and the scope (namespace), making it immediately distinguishable from siblings like list_pods and list_services.

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 when to use the tool: whenever deployments in a namespace need to be listed. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as using list_resource for a generic resource lookup, so guidance is only implicit rather than explicit.

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