workload_readiness_rca

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It clearly states this is a read-only scan ([READ]) and describes what the output contains (findings with ratio/condition and action). No mention of side effects or permissions needed, but the read-only nature is sufficiently communicated.

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 reasonably concise and front-loaded with the purpose. The docstring-style structure (Args) is tidy. Minor redundancy in the first line, but overall no wasted sentences.

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 two optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately covers the tool's behavior and return structure. It mentions the type of findings and actions, which is sufficient for an RCA tool.

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 must compensate. The 'Args' section provides clear meaning for both parameters: namespace scoping and target selection. This adds value beyond the schema's property names and null types.

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 uses a specific verb 'scan' and explicitly names the resources (Deployments/StatefulSets/DaemonSets) and the conditions checked (ready-vs-desired shortfalls, zero-ready outages, rollout-stuck). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like deployment_list 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?

The description implies usage for diagnosing readiness issues by mentioning the findings and kubectl actions, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like rollout_status or pod_health_rca. No 'when not to use' guidance is provided.

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