lastwords_watchlist

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-redundant behavior: results are a live 'right now' snapshot rather than historical, and each row carries growth rate plus a projected time-to-OOM. It omits where the data comes from (cluster/auth requirements) and any notion of result size or refresh.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the condition and the returned metrics are packed into one clause-stack with nothing wasted.

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 two-optional-parameter read tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does and what it returns, which is the main gap an absent output schema creates. It falls slightly short on the data source/cluster scoping and on whether zero-parameter calls scan all namespaces.

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 100%, with both namespace and min_percent documented in-schema including the default of 50. The description adds no meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Show') and resource ('containers'), plus the exact condition (close to memory limit) and the payload (growth rate, estimated time until OOM kill). The siblings (captures, read file) operate on a completely different resource, so this is unambiguously separable without opening a 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?

The description never says when to reach for this tool versus another, nor what prerequisites exist (a live cluster connection, an active watch/capture). 'Right now' hints at a live diagnostic use case, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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