get_configmap

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses an important behavioral trait: values longer than 200 characters are truncated. However, it does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior or describe behavior when the ConfigMap is not found, leaving some gaps. The truncation note is valuable, but the absence of annotations means the disclosure is only partial.

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 short sentences with zero redundancy. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the critical truncation detail is stated efficiently. Every word 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?

This is a low-complexity read tool with an output schema present appears to share the same schema, so return values are documented. The description covers the key non-obvious behavior (truncation) and the operation's intent. Minor omissions like 'not found' behavior do not significantly impair usability.

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%, and the description adds no parameter-level context beyond what the schema provides. It does not explain what 'name' refers to, how 'cluster' and 'namespace' interact, or how the defaults work semantically. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 and resource: 'Get ConfigMap keys and values.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from list_configmaps, which would return ConfigMaps themselves, and from create/update/delete_configmap, which modify them. No ambiguity remains about the tool's core purpose.

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 clearly defines the tool's context for use: retrieving the keys and values of a specific ConfigMap. It provides no explicit exclusions or alternative routing, but the operation is simple enough that the description's clarity serves as adequate usage guidance.

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