top_pods

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates that the operation is a read-only 'Get' and adds 'real-time' qualifier, but does not elaborate on permissions, error behavior, or whether results are snapshots. The description is not misleading, but lacks rich behavioral detail.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. The 'oc adm top pods' analogy adds useful context without extra bulk. 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?

The tool is simple, with an output schema to define return values, so the description does not need to explain output format. However, it lacks any mention of 'cluster_alias' and provides no guidance on choosing between related tools beyond the plural 'all pods'. This leaves some contextual gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'namespace' parameter via 'in a namespace', but completely omits 'cluster_alias', which is a significant parameter given multi-cluster sibling tools. The description adds partial meaning but leaves half the parameters undocumented.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('pods'), and scope ('all pods in a namespace'). The analogy to 'oc adm top pods' reinforces functionality and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'top_pod' (singular) and 'top_nodes' (different resource).

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 gives clear context: this is for real-time CPU/memory of all pods in a namespace. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the plural 'all pods' effectively excludes single-pod or node-level tools, providing implicit usage guidance. No exclusions are mentioned, but the context is clear.

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