configmap_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states this is a read operation ('Get details'), but doesn't disclose authentication requirements, error conditions, rate limits, or what 'Detailed information' includes. For a Kubernetes tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter and return sections. Every sentence earns its place, though the return statement is vague. It's appropriately sized for a simple lookup 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?

Given 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately covers parameter semantics but lacks behavioral context and output details. For a read-only Kubernetes tool, it's minimally viable but doesn't address authentication, error handling, or return format specifics that would be helpful.

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 description explicitly documents all three parameters with clear semantic meaning (context_name, namespace, name), adding significant value beyond the 0% schema description coverage. While it doesn't provide format examples or constraints, it fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions, making parameters understandable.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'details of a specific ConfigMap', making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like configmap_list (which lists multiple) and configmap_create/delete/update (which modify). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other 'get' tools like configmap_get vs. configmap_list, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention configmap_list for listing multiple ConfigMaps, or clarify prerequisites like needing proper Kubernetes access. The agent must infer usage from the name and context alone.

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