Discover why a Kubernetes manifest trap breaks production, the incident that exposed it, and how to fix it.
Explain one trap: what goes wrong, the incident it came from, and how to fix it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| trap_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the expected content areas (problem, incident, fix) but does not disclose failure modes, invalid ID behavior, or any data-source caveats; the description is consistent with the 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 one concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and immediately lists the three key content components, making it easy for an agent to scan and act on.
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 simple, read-only, single-parameter tool, the description covers the essential outcome well. It lacks an explicit mention of how to obtain a valid trap_id or what happens for unknown IDs, but these are minor gaps given the simple scope and helpful sibling names.
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 provides only a bare 'trap_id' string with 0% description coverage, so the description carries the burden of explaining the parameter. It implies that trap_id selects one trap but does not specify where valid IDs come from, what format they take, or any relationship to list_traps.
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 uses a specific verb ('Explain') and a precise resource ('one trap'), and it specifies the content delivered: what goes wrong, the originating incident, and the fix. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_traps, which enumerates traps, and audit_manifests, which concerns manifests.
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 'one trap' makes clear this is a single-item lookup rather than a listing or audit operation, which provides usable context against the sibling tools. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over list_traps or audit_manifests, so the guidance is implied rather than fully articulated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.