configmap_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered, and the '[READ]' tag is largely redundant with that. The useful addition is clarifying the content is config data, not secrets, but nothing is said about missing-key behavior, error modes, or return shape beyond the payload description.

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 scope, followed by an Args block that maps cleanly to the three parameters. Efficient overall, with only mild redundancy in the '[READ]' prefix given the annotation.

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 tool with no output schema, the description conveys what is returned (config keys and values) and how to address the resource. It is complete enough to invoke correctly, though it omits error/edge behavior for a non-existent configmap.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry the params, and it does document all three: name (cross-referenced to configmap_list), namespace (omit for the target's default namespace), and target (k8s target name from config). This meaningfully compensates for the schema gap, though it stays fairly shallow.

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+resource ('Return a configmap's data') and even scopes the payload ('keys + values — config, not secrets'), which distinguishes it from secret-list/get siblings. An agent can identify what this does without opening the schema.

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 implies usage by cross-referencing configmap_list ('see configmap_list') for obtaining the name, and notes the namespace-omission behavior. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives (e.g., list vs get) or exclusions; the workflow is only inferred.

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