pod_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It correctly identifies the operation as read-only via the [READ] prefix, but lacks details on error behavior (e.g., pod not found), authentication requirements, or rate limits.

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, using a clear [READ] header and structured parameter list. Every sentence serves a purpose 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?

The description covers the essential purpose and parameter semantics. However, it omits the return format or output structure, and does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'pod_describe'. Given the tool's simplicity, it is mostly complete but could provide a bit more context.

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 description documents all three parameters (name, namespace, target) with practical instructions, such as 'name: Pod name (see pod_list)' and 'namespace: omit to use target's default namespace'. This adds significant value beyond the schema, which only specifies types and defaults.

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 explicitly states 'Return detail for a single pod by name' with a [READ] prefix, clearly indicating the action and resource. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'pod_describe', which likely has similar functionality.

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 when needing details of a specific pod, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use alternatives like 'pod_list' or 'pod_describe', nor does it mention any prerequisites or limitations.

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