statefulset_get

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and the '[READ]' prefix is consistent with that, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds small behavioral context (namespace defaults to the target's default namespace, target comes from config) but says nothing about error behavior or what a missing resource yields.

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 single-sentence summary followed by a compact Args block; nothing is padded. The Args lines slightly restate schema property names, but each carries added meaning (source of the name, defaulting behavior), so nearly every token earns its place.

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 simple read tool with no output schema, the description covers selection, parameters, and defaulting adequately. It stops short of indicating what 'detail' is returned (spec/status shape), which is the one gap given there is no output schema to fall back on.

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 carry parameter meaning, and it does document all three: name (with a pointer to statefulset_list), namespace (omit for default), and target (k8s target name from config). It adds real semantics beyond the bare schema titles, though it doesn't clarify required vs optional — which the schema already handles.

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 ('Return detail') and resource ('a single statefulset by name'), and the '[READ]' tag plus the singular scope cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling statefulset_list. An agent can identify the tool's job without opening the schema.

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?

It points to statefulset_list for name lookup and explains that namespace can be omitted to use the target's default, which is useful context. However, it never states when to prefer this over pod_describe / *_get siblings or what happens if the statefulset doesn't exist; usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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