get_service_endpoints

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It implies read-only behavior but doesn't state idempotency, permission needs, or whether it lists all endpoints or just addresses. Safety guarantees are absent.

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 a single sentence, which is concise but lacks detail. It is front-loaded but does not use space to add value beyond the basic action. Could be more informative without losing brevity.

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?

No output schema is provided, and the description does not mention return format. The tool is simple but agents need to know whether output is a list of IPs, ports, or full endpoint objects. This gap reduces completeness given the context.

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 coverage is 100%, so description adds no extra meaning beyond parameter names and descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate. The description does not elaborate on how 'cluster' affects behavior or format requirements.

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 shows endpoint addresses for a service, which is a specific read operation. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like list_pods or get_pod_logs. However, it could explicitly mention that it retrieves Kubernetes Endpoints objects.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. It does not specify prerequisite contexts or contrast with similar tools like describe_service (not listed) or get_cluster_info. The agent must infer usage from context.

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