kubectl_logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'Get logs' is consistent. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond what the input schema provides (e.g., follow param with timeout note). It does not contradict annotations.

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 a single concise sentence, well-structured and easy to parse. 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?

Given the rich schema with full parameter descriptions and annotations indicating a read-only tool, the description adequately completes the context. It could optionally mention common use cases or limitations, but it is sufficient for agent understanding.

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?

Input schema has 100% parameter descriptions, so the description does not need to add param details. The description reinforces resource types but adds no semantic value beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: getting logs from Kubernetes resources. It mentions specific resource types (pods, deployments, jobs) which aligns with the schema enum. However, the phrase 'like' introduces slight vagueness, and there is no explicit differentiation from sibling tools, though none directly conflict.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., exec_in_pod for interactive debugging, kubectl_describe for resource details) or when not to use it (e.g., for real-time streaming with timeouts).

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