List pods

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description only needs supplementary behavioral context. It adds that the tool surfaces restart counts and detected problems like CrashLoopBackOff and ImagePullBackOff, which is useful beyond the schema. There is no contradiction with the 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?

The description is one compact, front-loaded sentence with returned fields, followed by a short usage directive. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler or repetition of annotation data.

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?

The output schema covers the return shape, annotations cover the safety profile, and optional parameters keep the call simple. The description gives a clear diagnostic purpose and relevant problem categories; it only lacks explicit guidance on namespace/selector semantics, which keeps it from being fully 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 0%, so the description should compensate by explaining namespace and selector behavior. It does not mention either parameter or any default filtering semantics. An agent must rely on Kubernetes conventions or infer from the property names alone, which is a meaningful gap.

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 gives a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('pods'), and enumerates the returned fields (phase, ready count, restart count, detected problem). It also names concrete problem categories and distinguishes itself as the first check when a deployment looks unhealthy, setting it apart from the sibling log/status tools.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use this first when a deployment looks unhealthy', giving a direct trigger condition for when to choose this tool. It does not list when-not-to-use or alternatives such as get_deployment_status, but the stated condition is actionable and sufficient for initial selection.

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