node_describe

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safe-read profile, so the [READ] tag is redundant. The description does add value by naming the returned data (capacity, allocatable, conditions, taints), partially compensating for the absent output schema, but says nothing about errors, permissions, or behavior for missing nodes.

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] tag and a single-line purpose, followed by a clean Args block. No filler, though the [READ] tag duplicates the readOnlyHint 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 read-only single-node describe with no output schema, listing the key returned facets plus both parameters is nearly sufficient. It would be stronger with a note on behavior when the node/target does not exist.

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 carries the full burden. It documents both params concisely ('name: Node name', 'target: k8s target name from config') and cross-references node_list for valid names, but gives no format, default, or optionality detail for target.

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 (Describe) and resource (node) and enumerates the returned facets (capacity, allocatable, conditions, taints), which clearly separates it from node_list. Sibling differentiation is only implicit via the node_list cross-reference rather than stated explicitly.

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 – describe a single node's detailed state – but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or comparison against node_list/node_top. The 'see node_list' pointer helps locate a name but is not guidance on choosing this tool.

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