pod_health_rca

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It explicitly marks as [READ], implying non-destructive. It describes the output format (worst-first with reasons and kubectl actions). Could mention pagination or limits, but sufficient for a read-only scan.

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 concise and well-structured. First sentence summarizes purpose, then a line about output, then Args. No redundant words.

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 and no annotations, the description provides a good overview of behavior and parameters. It covers what to expect but could detail exact return fields. Still, adequate for an agent to use correctly.

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%, but the description includes an Args section explaining each parameter (namespace, label_selector, target) in plain language. This compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 scans pods for specific failure modes (CrashLoopBackOff, etc.) and returns worst-first findings with reasons and kubectl actions. It distinguishes from sibling tools like pod_list or pod_describe by focusing on root cause analysis.

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 explains when to use by listing the specific issues it detects, and suggests omitting namespace to scan all. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent.

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