get_helm_releases

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Obtener información' implies a read operation, but it does not explain whether namespaces are required, what the default scope is, whether status filtering is applied by default, or what the returned data looks like.

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, direct sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient and front-loaded with the core action and resource, though it could be more informative without becoming verbose.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is too minimal. An agent cannot tell what it will receive, what the default namespace behavior is, or what filtering expectations exist beyond the raw schema. More behavioral and usage context is needed for reliable 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters status and namespace are already documented in the schema. The description adds no further semantic detail about parameter behavior, such as how omitting namespace affects results or what status values are accepted, so the baseline 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 states a clear verb ('Obtener') and a specific resource ('releases de Helm'), making it easy to distinguish from siblings like get_pods or get_cluster_info. It is slightly vague about whether it lists, summarizes, or details releases, but the resource target is unambiguous.

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 about when to use this tool versus siblings such as analyze_versions, compare_versions, or get_outdated_components. There is no mention of prerequisites, intended use cases, or conditions that would make this tool the right choice versus an alternative.

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