node_describe

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states '[READ]' indicating a safe, non-destructive operation, and lists the data returned (capacity, allocatable, conditions, taints). No mention of permissions or error handling, but for a read-only tool this is sufficient.

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, two lines plus arg list. Key information is front-loaded: '[READ]' and purpose. There is no fluff; every sentence adds value.

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 no output schema, the description specifies what the tool returns (capacity, allocatable, conditions, taints). This covers the main use case for node inspection. It doesn't mention additional details like node status or labels, but it's sufficient for a describe operation.

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 must compensate. It explains 'name' as Node name and references node_list for discovery. 'target' is described as 'k8s target name from config', adding meaning beyond the bare schema. This is concise and helpful, though more detail on target values could improve it.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Describe a node' with specific attributes (capacity, allocatable, conditions, taints). The '[READ]' prefix signals read-only operation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like node_list (listing) or cordon_node (mutation).

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 implies usage context via 'see node_list' for obtaining node names, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. Compared to sibling tools, it's clear this is for detailed node inspection, but alternative tools are not mentioned.

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