skypilot_status_kubernetes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by disclosing the data scope (managed jobs, services, cluster info, context info) and flagging the tool as [Experimental], though it omits pagination or rate-limit behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and kept to three sentences. Slight redundancy between 'Includes managed jobs and services' and 'Returns ... managed job records', but overall efficient.

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 zero parameters, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description covers everything needed to invoke it correctly and understand its return scope. The only gap is not routing the agent away from the similar skypilot_cluster_status sibling.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to document beyond the schema. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter-level meaning is missing.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource (SkyPilot clusters and jobs) scoped to a Kubernetes cluster, which distinguishes it from the generic skypilot_cluster_status sibling. However, it never names that sibling explicitly, so differentiation relies on the agent inferring the K8s scoping.

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?

Usage is implied by the scope ('in a Kubernetes cluster'), so an agent can guess this is the K8s-specific status check. There is no explicit when-to-use versus skypilot_cluster_status or the many other status siblings, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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