lastwords_list_captures

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real value beyond that by disclosing that captures persist after events and prior container logs disappear, which tells the agent why this source is authoritative for historical incidents. It does not mention ordering, truncation, or what a capture record contains, which leaves some behavioral gaps.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its scope, followed by the decision guidance. The long second sentence is dense with useful triggers rather than filler, and no sentence restates the tool name.

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 no-required-parameter listing tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, triggers, and the historical-retention rationale an agent needs to choose it. The remaining gap is that it never says what a 'capture' actually contains (files, dumps, metadata), which matters more here because no output schema exists.

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 100% and every parameter (pod, kind, limit, since, namespace) already has an inline description with defaults, so the baseline is 3. The description only implicitly touches parameters by listing failure conditions that map to the 'kind' values, adding no syntax or semantics the 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?

Specific verb 'List' plus a concrete resource ('evidence lastwords saved'), scoped by the exact triggering conditions (OOMKilled, memory limit approached, crashed, core dump, evicted). This clearly separates it from the sibling lastwords_get_capture, which retrieves a single stored capture, and from lastwords_watchlist.

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?

Explicit when-to-use: 'Use this first when investigating pod restarts, OOMKilled, CrashLoopBackOff or evictions', including the key edge case of older incidents whose events and previous logs are already gone. It stops short of naming the follow-up alternative (e.g. lastwords_get_capture for details or lastwords_read_file for contents), so routing onward is left to inference.

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