skypilot_kubernetes_node_info

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is already known. The description adds what data is returned (CPU, memory, GPU), which is useful, but does not cover authentication, rate limits, or pagination. With annotations covering the read-only nature, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded and with no extraneous information. Every part earns its place.

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 that an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values. It covers purpose and scope adequately, though it lacks usage guidance and parameter explanation. For a simple read-only tool, it is mostly complete.

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% for the single 'context' parameter. The description does not explain the 'context' parameter at all, so it fails to compensate for the low schema coverage. However, with only one optional parameter and an output schema present, baseline 3 is reasonable.

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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Get resource information for all nodes in a Kubernetes cluster', and lists what is shown (CPU, memory, GPU). It clearly distinguishes from the sibling skypilot_slurm_node_info by specifying Kubernetes, though it does not name that sibling in the description.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like skypilot_slurm_node_info or skypilot_status_kubernetes. Usage is only implied by the scope (Kubernetes nodes).

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