get_cluster_events

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals that the operation is a read (get), explains namespace filtering semantics, and clarifies cluster selection fallback logic. However, it does not mention potential side effects (likely none), error conditions, or output formatting beyond 'list of events', leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 front-loaded with a one-line purpose, followed by a compact Args list and a Returns line. Every parameter is covered in a single informative line, with no redundant exposition. It is appropriately sized for a tool with five 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (list events) and the absence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the core aspects: what it does, how to specify namespace and cluster, optional filters, and return type. It could be more detailed about event ordering or the exact structure of the returned list, but it is sufficient for a straightforward read operation.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description's Args section adds substantial meaning to every parameter: the special value 'all' for namespace, the precedence between kubeconfig_path and cluster_name, the purpose of event_type as a filter, and the role of limit. This completely compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions and provides actionable guidance.

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 opens with '获取集群事件' (retrieve cluster events), which is a specific verb+resource combination that clearly indicates the tool's purpose. It is distinct from sibling tools like get_pod_logs or get_cluster_info, as 'cluster events' unambiguously refers to Kubernetes events.

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 clear context on how to scope the query (e.g., namespace='all' for all namespaces) and explains the cluster selection precedence between kubeconfig_path and cluster_name. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the purpose is self-evident and the parameter guidance effectively implies when to use this tool.

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