pod_describe

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It starts with '[READ]' indicating a read-only operation, and describes what it returns (status, conditions, container states, recent events). It does not contradict any annotations. While it lacks details like rate limits or permission requirements, the read-only nature and general transparency are clear.

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: three sentences in two short paragraphs. The first line front-loads the READ indicator and core purpose. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 tool that lists pod details and diagnosis scenarios, the description covers what the tool returns (status, conditions, container states, events) and its intended use case. There is no output schema, but the description adequately summarizes output. Could potentially mention response format or limitations, but for the purpose it is mostly complete.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains each parameter: 'name: Pod name (see pod_list).', 'namespace: Namespace; omit for the target's default namespace.', 'target: k8s target name from config.' This adds meaningful guidance beyond the schema, earning a 4.

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 it describes a pod including status, conditions, container states, and recent events. It specifies the resource (pod) and action (describe), and distinguishes itself from siblings like pod_get by emphasizing it is the fastest single call for diagnosing why a pod is not ready, covering specific failure modes (CrashLoopBackOff, ImagePullBackOff, scheduling failures).

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 gives explicit context for when to use this tool: 'the fastest single call to diagnose why a pod is not Ready' and lists common scenarios. It does not, however, state when not to use it or mention alternatives like pod_get or pod_health_rca for more in-depth analysis, so it falls short of a 5.

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