cronjob_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds the namespace-defaulting behavior ('omit for the target's default namespace'), which is genuine added context, but says nothing about error cases or the returned detail. Adequate but thin against the annotation baseline.

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 [READ] marker and one-line purpose, followed by a compact Args block. Every line earns its place; the only mild redundancy is the section header itself.

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 read-only, single-param-required get tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, all parameters, and namespace defaulting — enough to invoke it correctly. The absence of any statement about what 'detail' is returned is the only gap.

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 carry all parameter meaning and it largely does: it names all three args and explains name (CronJob name), namespace (default fallback), and target (k8s target from config). 'Target' remains somewhat opaque, keeping this short of a 5.

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 ('Return detail for a single cronjob by name'), and 'single' plus the [READ] tag distinguishes it from cronjob_list/job_list without opening the schema. It does not explicitly name job_get as the non-cronjob alternative, but the resource granularity 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?

Usage is implied: fetch one cronjob by name, cross-referencing cronjob_list for valid names. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not framing versus cronjob_list or job_get, so the agent must infer the routing condition.

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