pod_resource_usage_vs_requests

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It implies a read-only comparison and adds context about right-sizing, but it doesn't disclose potential edge cases like missing metrics or permissions. This is adequate but not rich.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, followed by a practical use case. Every word earns its place with no unnecessary detail.

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 is relatively simple and has an output schema, so return values are covered. The description gives a clear purpose and usage context. Minor gaps like parameter semantics and edge-case disclosure exist, but overall it is sufficient for basic selection.

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?

Input schema has 2 parameters with 0% coverage (no descriptions). The description does not mention namespace or cluster_alias at all, providing no additional meaning. The agent must rely solely on parameter names, which may not be sufficient for cluster_alias.

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 compares actual pod resource usage against configured requests/limits, using a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like top_pods which show raw usage, and the right-sizing purpose further clarifies its niche.

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 a clear use case ('right-sizing' and identifying over/under-provisioned pods), giving context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of a perfect 5.

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