workload_readiness_rca

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered; the description goes further by disclosing result ordering (worst-first), what each finding contains (measured ready/desired ratio or failing condition reason), and that an actionable kubectl command is attached. It stops short of noting cost, pagination, or cluster-connectivity requirements.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, return behavior second, arguments last, with a [READ] marker for instant scanning. The args block is necessary precisely because the schema has no descriptions.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly explains the return shape (worst-first findings with ratio/condition and a kubectl action) and documents both parameters. It is essentially complete for a two-param read-only diagnostic tool, missing only environment or operand notes.

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%, so the description carries the burden and does so: it defines 'namespace' as a scope with 'omit for all namespaces' and explains that 'target' is a k8s target name from config defaulting to the configured default. Both parameters gain clear semantics the bare anyOf/null schema lacks.

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 names a specific verb (Scan) and enumerates the exact resource kinds (Deployments/StatefulSets/DaemonSets) plus the failure modes it detects (ready-vs-desired shortfalls, zero-ready outages, rollout-stuck). This scope alone distinguishes it from narrower siblings like rollout_status or pod_health_rca.

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?

Usage is implied by the listed conditions - an agent can infer it should reach for this when workloads seem under-ready - but there is no explicit when-to-use framing and no mention of alternatives such as pod_health_rca or rollout_status. The 'omit...' sentences are parameter defaults, not routing guidance.

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