List services

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds interpretive context beyond the schema and annotations—that zero endpoints explain unreachable apps—which helps an agent reason about the result. No contradictions 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 with no filler; the output fields are front-loaded in the first sentence and the diagnostic insight in the second. Every word 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 read-only listing tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description conveys the core purpose and a useful diagnostic mental model. The only notable omissions are parameter default semantics and explicit guidance about namespace scope, which prevent a perfect score.

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% and the description does not mention the 'name' or 'namespace' parameters at all. While the parameter names are self-explanatory, the null/default behavior (e.g., whether null namespace means 'all namespaces' or 'current namespace') is left unspecified, which is a real gap for correct invocation.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), a resource ('Services'), and the exact fields returned ('type, ports, selector and endpoint count'). This clearly separates it from sibling tools like get_pods and get_events, which target different resource types, so an agent can select it confidently.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or alternative routing, but the second sentence provides a clear diagnostic trigger: check services when an application is unreachable even though pods look healthy, because zero endpoints are a common cause. That is useful context, though it stops short of naming sibling alternatives or exclusions.

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