get_service

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fills the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the tool 'shows' info, but does not clarify whether it performs a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, or what the output format is. It lacks context on side effects or constraints.

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 short and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a straightforward Args list. It is concise but lacks examples or additional context that could be useful, but it is not overly verbose.

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 it has an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values, but it is still incomplete for a getter tool with no annotations. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, how it handles missing services, or any prerequisites, but the output schema may cover some of that.

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 0%, but the description briefly explains each parameter: name, namespace, and cluster are self-explanatory with defaults. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, but the parameter meanings are clear from their names and the provided examples (e.g., "default").

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 detailed info for a Service, including specific fields like selector, ports, and Endpoints. It distinguishes it from list_services by focusing on detailed info for a single Service, though it doesn't explicitly name the 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 it is for getting details of a single service, contrasting with listing services, but does not explicitly state when to use this over list_services or other getter tools. It provides no explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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