get_configmap

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool retrieves a ConfigMap including its data, but it does not disclose read-only intent, permission requirements, error behavior (e.g., not found), or any other side effects. The description adds minimal context beyond the tool's name.

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 with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the main action and resource. However, it is arguably under-specified, but the conciseness itself is appropriate given the simple nature of the tool.

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 tool has three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description only says 'including its data', which partially addresses the return value but does not explain parameter semantics, error conditions, or how cluster_alias affects the request. A more complete description would mention that it fetches a specific ConfigMap by name, namespace, and optional cluster alias, and what the response contains.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for parameters. The description does not mention any of the three parameters (name, namespace, cluster_alias). While 'name' and 'namespace' are somewhat self-explanatory, 'cluster_alias' is ambiguous and left unexplained. The description provides no added meaning over the raw schema.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'ConfigMap' and clarifies that the return includes its data. This distinguishes it from list_configmaps, which lists all ConfigMaps, though it does not explicitly differentiate from other getter tools in the sibling set.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description neither states when to use it (e.g., when you need a specific ConfigMap's data) nor mentions alternatives like list_configmaps for listing or get_secret_metadata for secrets. The usage is only implied by the name.

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