get_kubeconfig_info

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explains the two operational modes (reading a saved config vs validating content) but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, what happens on errors, or any permissions required. The verbs imply non-mutating behavior, but this is not made explicit.

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 concise and well-structured, starting with a summary sentence, then listing the two usage modes, the arguments, and the return value. Every sentence adds value and there is no unnecessary verbosity.

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?

With no output schema, the description only vaguely states 'kubeconfig detailed information or validation result' without specifying the structure of the return value or error conditions. It adequately covers the two usage modes, but for a tool with no output schema, more detail on return format and failure handling would be expected.

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%, but the description fully compensates by defining both parameters: 'name' as a saved configuration name for reading details, 'content' as kubeconfig file content for validation, and clearly stating they are mutually exclusive. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare input schema.

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 retrieves kubeconfig details or validates content format, using specific verbs ('获取' and '验证') and a resource ('kubeconfig'). It distinguishes two usage modes and differentiates from sibling tools like list/delete/load by focusing on info retrieval and validation.

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 explicitly lays out two usage contexts: passing a saved name to get details, or passing content to validate format, and notes the parameters are mutually exclusive. It does not mention alternative tools or exclusions, but provides clear context for how to use the tool itself.

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