get_kubernetes_cost_trends

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool reads stored snapshots and provides examples of outputs (growing, shrinking, stable). It lacks details on data freshness or permissions but is sufficiently transparent for a read-only operation.

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 concise with a clear structure: purpose, data source, parameter list, and examples. It is front-loaded and easy to scan. Minor improvement could be merging the parameter list into a single line, but it's already efficient.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should describe return format. It hints at showing trends and whether spend is growing, shrinking, or stable, but lacks concrete details (e.g., graph vs. table, numeric values). The examples help but incomplete.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description lists all 4 parameters with brief semantic context (e.g., 'Lookback window in days', 'Filter to a specific cluster name'). It compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it could be more explicit about allowed values for granularity (e.g., 'daily' or 'weekly' is only in examples).

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 Kubernetes cost trends over time from stored snapshots, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_kubernetes_costs (which is about current costs) and get_cost_trends (general cost trends) by focusing on Kubernetes and historical snapshots.

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 explains that snapshots are stored when get_kubernetes_costs is called, implying a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_kubernetes_costs or get_cost_trends, nor does it give when-not-to-use scenarios.

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