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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden for behavioral disclosure. It describes the output (totals, list of unhealthy pods) but does not mention whether the tool is read-only, requires permissions, or has any side effects. This is minimal adequacy but lacks depth.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and usage hint. Every word earns its place; there is no wasted text.

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 tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description adequately covers the essential information: what the tool returns (health totals, unhealthy pods) and its entry-point role. It could mention that it provides a cluster-level summary, but it is sufficiently complete.

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 zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter info, and it correctly provides no unnecessary detail.

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 provides 'node and pod health totals plus the list of unhealthy pods,' which is a specific verb+resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_pods and node_health by suggesting to 'start here,' indicating it's an entry point for health overview.

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 phrase 'Start here' explicitly guides the agent to use this tool first when investigating cluster health, providing clear context. However, it does not include explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool recommendations, which would have merited a 5.

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

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

Reveals that deletion is not permanent (controller recreates) and mentions an allowlist, but does not disclose failure modes, permissions, or side effects on running containers. With no annotations, more detail would be beneficial.

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 sentence that packs core purpose and outcome. Very concise, but could be slightly expanded to include parameter hints or use cases without losing efficiency.

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?

Provides essential purpose and behavioral effect, but lacks parameter descriptions, usage guidelines, and error states. Given absent annotations and unknown output schema, more context would be needed for robust agent usage.

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?

Parameters (namespace, name) are not explained in the description. While their names are conventional, the description adds no semantic context beyond the schema. With 0% schema coverage, this is a significant gap.

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?

Cleary states the action (delete) and resource (pod), with added behavioral outcome (controller recreates it) and constraint (allowlist). Distinguishes from siblings like restart_deployment.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description implies a specific behavior but does not state conditions, exclusions, or compare to similar tools.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states a read-like action ('list') but omits details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, default namespace behavior, or whether results are scoped to a namespace.

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 extremely concise (one sentence) but sacrifices necessary details. It could be longer to include parameter guidance without losing conciseness.

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 optional namespace parameter and presence of an output schema, the description should clarify namespace behavior and concise output structure. It fails to provide enough contextual completeness for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates not at all. It does not mention the 'namespace' parameter, its default value, or its effect (e.g., filtering by namespace vs. listing all). The schema alone is insufficient for an agent to understand parameter usage.

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 specifies the verb 'list', the resource 'deployments', and the included information ('ready/desired replica counts'), making the tool's purpose clear and distinct from siblings like list_pods or cluster_summary.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_pods, cluster_summary, or other siblings. The description does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full transparency burden. It discloses that Warning-type events sort first, which is a behavioral trait. However, it does not mention whether the tool is read-only, any rate limits, or other side effects. The sorting info is useful but insufficient for full transparency.

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 very concise with one sentence, no wasted words, and front-loads key information. However, it could be restructured slightly to include a verb for clarity.

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 availability of an output schema (not shown), the description does not need to explain return values. The tool is simple with one optional parameter, and the description covers the core functionality and sorting. It is minimally complete but lacks details like the meaning of 'recent' or any filtering capabilities.

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 0%, and the description does not mention the sole parameter 'limit' or its meaning (e.g., maximum number of events returned). Without schema coverage, the description must compensate, but it fails to add any semantic value beyond the schema's type and default.

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 'Recent cluster events; Warning-type events sort first' clearly identifies the tool as listing recent cluster events and states a specific sorting behavior, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_deployments or list_pods. However, it could be more explicit with a verb like 'List'.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling tools are all distinct, but the description does not clarify context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It reveals sorting behavior (unhealthy pods first) but lacks details on authentication, side effects, pagination, or output format. The description is minimally transparent.

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 very concise (two sentences) and front-loads the purpose. However, it lacks structural elements like paragraphs or bullet points, and may be too terse for complete understanding.

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 tool's simplicity (1 optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema (not shown in input), the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not mention pagination, default namespace behavior, or distinguish from similar listing tools like list_deployments.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds that namespace is optional but does not explain its filtering effect or provide any additional semantics beyond the schema's sparse definition. The description adds limited value.

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 action ('list pods') and the resource ('pods'), and distinguishes from siblings like delete_pod and pod_logs. The mention of optional namespace filtering and sorting by health adds specificity.

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?

It indicates that namespace is optional and that unhealthy pods sort first, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., cluster_summary, list_deployments) or 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.

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states what data is returned but does not indicate that the tool is read-only, any required permissions, or potential side effects. For a tool with no parameters, this is a minimal disclosure.

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?

One sentence covering the key aspects without superfluous words. Could be slightly more specific (e.g., 'Returns' at start) but overall efficient.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description adequately lists the main data categories. It does not explain the return structure or address edge cases, but with output schema present, this is acceptable.

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 zero parameters, and the input schema coverage is 100% (empty). The description is not required to add parameter details, and it implicitly confirms no input is needed. Baseline score of 4 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?

The description clearly identifies the resource (node) and the scope (readiness, kubelet version, capacity, pressure conditions). It implies a retrieval operation, though lacks an explicit verb. It distinguishes from siblings like cluster_summary which covers cluster-level health.

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as cluster_summary. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The description is purely factual without usage direction.

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

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

The description says 'Tail' implying streaming, but the parameter 'tail' (integer with default 200) suggests fetching a limited number of lines, which contradicts common tail semantics. No annotations are provided to clarify behavior such as whether logs are continuously streamed or fetched once.

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 sentence, which is concise but lacks structure or front-loading of key details. It is efficient but insufficiently informative for a tool with three parameters.

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 is extremely minimal given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, output schema exists). It fails to explain the tool's behavior, parameter usage, or output format, leaving significant gaps for correct invocation.

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 0% description coverage for parameters, and the description adds no information about namespace, pod, or tail parameters. It does not explain their meaning, formats, or constraints, leaving the agent unaware of how to properly fill these fields.

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 verb 'Tail' and the resource 'pod's logs', making it distinct from sibling tools like list_pods or delete_pod. However, it does not elaborate on what 'Tail' means (continuous streaming vs. fetching last lines), which could cause ambiguity.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_pods (for pod listing) or other sibling tools. There is no mention of prerequisites like having a specific pod name or namespace.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the allowlist restriction but lacks details on effects like downtime, pod restart behavior, or safety considerations. The term 'Rollout-restart' suggests a rolling restart but is not fully explained.

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 sentence, concise and to the point. It includes an important constraint without excess words. However, it could be structured to list key information more clearly.

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 moderate complexity of a restart operation and the presence of an output schema (not described), the description lacks completeness. It omits prerequisites, exact behavior, return values, and any usage scenarios. The allowlist restriction is helpful but insufficient.

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 0% and the description adds no explanation for the two required parameters (namespace, name). The mention of 'mutable-namespace allowlist' vaguely relates to namespace but does not clarify its meaning or provide any parameter-level semantics.

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 action 'Rollout-restart a deployment' with a specific verb and resource. The mention of 'mutable-namespace allowlist' identifies a scope restriction, distinguishing it from sibling tools like scale_deployment.

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 implies use only on deployments in the allowlist but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like scale_deployment or delete_pod. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It reveals scaling is possible but does not disclose if it is destructive, what permissions are required, or any rate limits. The allowlist constraint is opaque.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with key information. No extraneous words.

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 no annotations and a 3-param tool with a vague allowlist, the description lacks details on how replicas max is defined, scaling reversibility, or integration with sibling tools like list_deployments. The output schema existence is not leveraged.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It adds meaning for 'replicas' (range and allowlist) but says nothing about 'namespace' or 'name', leaving them minimally defined by types.

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 action ('Scale'), resource ('deployment'), and specific parameters ('to N replicas' with range 0..max and allowlist constraint). It distinguishes from siblings like restart_deployment or delete_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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The mention of 'allowlist' is vague and not explained. No alternatives among sibling tools are suggested.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states it 'reports' configuration but does not explicitly confirm it is read-only, idempotent, or requires no destructive actions. Behavioral traits like side effects or permissions are not disclosed.

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 that conveys the purpose without extraneous words. Every part is necessary.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the key aspects of what is reported. It could be improved by mentioning that it is a safe query, but given the simplicity, it is adequate.

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?

No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter information, but this is acceptable given zero parameters. Baseline 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 reports 'effective configuration' and lists specific aspects (context, read-only, allowlist). It distinguishes from siblings like 'node_health' and 'cluster_summary' by focusing on server configuration rather than cluster or node state.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Does not mention context, prerequisites, or when not to use it. Sibling tools exist but no differentiation is provided.

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