diagnose_crashloop

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It says 'diagnose' and 'provide remediation suggestions' but does not disclose what actions are taken (e.g., fetching logs, checking events). Behavior is vague.

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?

Single sentence, clear and concise. Could be improved by front-loading the action and adding structure, but no wasted words.

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 and no behavioral details, the description is incomplete for a diagnostic tool. It doesn't explain what the output looks like or what 'remediation suggestions' entails, leaving the agent underinformed.

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?

All three parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema; it only contextualizes the tool's purpose.

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 diagnoses a pod in CrashLoopBackOff state and provides remediation suggestions. It specifies the exact problem state and action, distinguishing it from siblings like get_pods (lists pods) or get_failing_pods (lists failing pods).

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?

Implied usage: when a pod is in CrashLoopBackOff. But no explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives. For example, if only pod status is needed, get_pods might suffice. Lacks guidance compared to other tools.

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