diagnose_pod

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that one call returns multiple data types and provides preliminary diagnostic advice, which is helpful. However, it does not mention permissions, side effects, or limitations, though the tool appears read-only.

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. The purpose is stated in the first sentence, followed by a brief list of outputs, usage guidance, and an Args block. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant information.

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 tool's purpose, usage context, and parameters, and notes the output includes diagnostic suggestions. An output schema is present, so return fields need not be enumerated. Minor gaps include no discussion of edge cases or interactions with sibling tools.

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 schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), but the description's Args section fully explains each parameter: namespace, pod_name, and cluster with allowed values (local/cloud) and a default. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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's purpose: '诊断指定 Pod 的健康状态' (diagnose the health status of a specified Pod). It lists the aggregated outputs (basic info, container status, warning events, logs, and rule-based suggestions), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_pod_logs or describe_pod.

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 explicitly states when to use it: when users need to troubleshoot Pod anomalies, crashes, or startup failures, and says to prioritize this tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or name explicit alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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