explain_resource

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does a solid job: it discloses a meaningful privacy constraint that the agent (and user) needs — env values, ConfigMap/Secret data, and command arguments are never printed. It doesn't explicitly state read-only/non-mutating behavior or error behavior (e.g., what happens when the kind/name isn't found), which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the core purpose opens the sentence and the parenthetical enumerations are informative rather than filler. The long embedded list of posture dimensions is slightly wall-of-text, but every clause carries information and the trailing privacy and parameter sentences are short.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return shape need not be explained, and the description correctly focuses on scope and on the one behavior an agent can't infer (redacted secret/env/args data). The unexplained required `path` parameter is the remaining gap for a four-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and it only partly does: it clarifies `kind` ('e.g. Deployment' — a Kind, not a filename), `name` (metadata.name), and `namespace` (disambiguator for duplicate names). The required `path` parameter is never explained at all, leaving the agent to guess whether it is a file, a directory, or a manifest root.

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?

Names a specific verb and scope ('Explain one object in plain English') and then enumerates exactly what the explanation covers: security posture, dependencies, inbound traffic, and lint findings. An agent can tell this is a single-object deep dive rather than a repo-wide scan like lint_manifests or check_references.

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?

Usage is only implied by the enumeration of contents; there is no explicit statement of when to pick this over lint_manifests, check_references, or rbac_review, which overlap on lint findings, references, and security posture. The only concrete guidance is 'pass `namespace` if the name exists in several', which is parameter advice rather than tool selection guidance.

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