configmap_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description must convey behavioral traits. It states the operation is a read ('[READ]') and returns data, not secrets, which is helpful. However, it does not disclose error behavior (e.g., if the configmap doesn't exist), permission requirements, or rate limits. For a simple get operation, the transparency is adequate but could be more comprehensive.

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 extremely concise and well-structured, with a clear header, a brief statement of function, and a labeled list of arguments. Every sentence adds value, and there is no superfluous text. The format is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

Given that the tool has three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential inputs and the nature of the output (keys and values). It references configmap_list for obtaining the name, which provides helpful context. It could mention that the result is a map of key-value strings, but the current wording is sufficient. Overall, it provides adequate context for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 must explain parameters. It does so by describing 'name' as the ConfigMap name with a cross-reference to configmap_list, 'namespace' with a default behavior note, and 'target' as a k8s target from config. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema. The description for 'target' is slightly vague but still informative.

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 starts with '[READ]' and clearly states it returns a configmap's data (keys and values), distinguishing it from secrets and listing tools like configmap_list. It uses a specific verb 'Return' and resource 'configmap's data', making the purpose 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?

The description provides explicit guidance for each parameter: 'name' references configmap_list for obtaining the name, 'namespace' explains omission defaults to the target's namespace, and 'target' is defined as a k8s target from config. It implicitly tells when to use this tool (to get a specific configmap's data) versus configmap_list (to list all). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternative tools.

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