manage_node

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose key side effects like drain evicting pods and default behavior for DaemonSet and mirror pods. It lacks details on permissions, reversibility, or potential cluster-level impact, which is important for a mutating Kubernetes 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 well-structured with a clear header and parameter list, and every parameter earns its place. The Returns section is vague, but overall the text is efficient and front-loaded.

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 has 6 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description covers all the essential parameter semantics and action behavior, making it usable. However, the return value is only described as '操作结果', and missing error/permission context leaves minor completeness gaps.

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 compensates thoroughly by explaining all six parameters, including action enum values with kubectl equivalents and the precedence between kubeconfig_path and cluster_name. This adds substantial meaning beyond the raw 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's purpose as node operations management with three explicit actions (drain, cordon, uncordon), mapping them to kubectl equivalents. This distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on checking health or general resource management.

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 action definitions imply when each operation is appropriate, such as using drain to evict pods or cordon to mark unschedulable. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like check_node_health or batch_update_resources, nor does it provide exclusions.

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