pod

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. It only lists variables and an example, without explaining return format, side effects, required permissions, or pagination behavior. This is a significant gap for a query tool.

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 short but not well-structured. The variable list is redundant with the schema, and the example is cut off mid-way, making it less useful. It is under-specified rather than concise, lacking clarity and organization.

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 complexity (15 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), this description is grossly inadequate. It does not explain the core purpose, expected inputs/outputs, or any behavioral nuances, making it nearly impossible for an agent to invoke 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?

The schema descriptions are essentially type-only ('GraphQL: String'), but the example in the description provides meaningful structure for the filter object, showing fields like customers, ids, name, pods, roles, and users. This adds some value beyond the schema, though it is truncated and unclear for other parameters.

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 'Access Groups · query pod' is vague and generic. 'query pod' essentially restates the tool name, and the mention of 'Access Groups' does not clarify the exact operation. It fails to distinguish this tool from siblings like 'pods', 'access_group', or 'create_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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or excluded scenarios, leaving the agent without any indication of appropriate usage.

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