api_resources

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the '[READ]' tag is redundant and the safety profile is covered. The description adds the target-resolution behavior (config name, default fallback) but discloses nothing further about output shape, auth, or pagination, so it adds modest value beyond structured data.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and the read tag, then a tight Args block. No wasted prose, though the bracketed '[READ]' restates the annotation rather than earning 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, single-param, no-output-schema discovery tool, the description tells the agent what it returns (API groups and versions) and how to direct the call via target. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 schema only lists 'target' as a nullable string with null default. The description compensates by explaining that target is a k8s target name from config and that omitting it uses the default, which is genuine meaning beyond the raw schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'List available API groups and their versions.' This uniquely identifies the resource (API discovery) among the many workload-specific siblings like pod_list and node_list. It could be sharper about how this differs in intent (discovery vs. resource enumeration), but the verb+resource is unambiguous.

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?

Gives parameter-level usage ('omit to use the default') but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use framing against alternatives. Since no sibling covers Kubernetes API discovery, the lack of exclusions is a minor gap, leaving usage implied rather than stated.

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