kubectl_reconnect

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

The description discloses that the tool recreates all API clients, forcing fresh DNS resolution and new TCP connections. Annotations only indicate it is not read-only, so the description adds significant behavioral context beyond the structured data.

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 two sentences long, with the purpose stated first, followed by a specific use case. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and usage. It could mention the return value or success indication for completeness, but it is largely sufficient.

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 tool has no parameters, and the input schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter details, so a baseline score of 4 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 reconnects to the Kubernetes API server by recreating all API clients. It uses specific verbs and resources ('reconnect', 'API server', 'API clients'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools that focus on resource management or debugging.

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 advises using this tool after cluster upgrades (e.g., EKS control plane upgrades that rotate ENIs/IPs) to force fresh DNS resolution and new TCP connections. It provides a clear use case, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it.

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