get-kubernetes-workloads

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool operates in 'CLAS mode' and shows policy sync state, which adds context. However, it does not mention pagination behavior beyond the max_results parameter, whether the operation is read-only, or what happens when cluster_href is omitted (though the parameter description partially covers that).

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds useful output detail. It is appropriately sized for a tool with three parameters and no output schema.

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?

The description is adequate for a read-style list tool, but with no annotations and no output schema, it could be more complete. It does not explain what 'CLAS mode' means, how policy sync state is represented, or how the tool behaves when no cluster_href is provided (though the parameter description covers the fallback). An agent could call it correctly, but some behavioral context is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds minimal parameter meaning beyond the schema: it mentions labels and policy sync state, which relate to the output rather than the parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Get') and resource ('Kubernetes Workloads (CLAS mode) from a container cluster'), and lists what it shows (Deployments, Services, other K8s objects, labels, policy sync state). It is clear enough to distinguish from the sibling 'get-workloads' (which likely targets non-container workloads), though it does not explicitly name that sibling.

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 implies usage context: it is for Kubernetes/container cluster workloads managed by Illumio, and the cluster_href parameter description says 'If omitted, lists all clusters first,' which gives some behavioral guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get-workloads or get-container-clusters, 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.