Describe a CRD

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It lists what is included (version list, conversion strategy, etc.) but does not disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature, performance implications, or authentication needs. The mention of 'risk flags' adds some behavioral context.

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 that lists many details, making it slightly dense but still clear. It could be split into two sentences for readability, but it remains concise and front-loaded with the main action.

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 the complexity of the tool (multiple aspects listed) and no output schema, the description provides a fairly complete list of what is included. However, it does not specify the return format (e.g., JSON) or elaborate on the risk flags, leaving some 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 coverage is 100% and the parameter description provides an example. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable since the schema already explains the parameter.

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 provides detailed information on a single CRD, listing specific aspects like version list, conversion strategy, printer columns, subresources, validation summary, instance count, and risk flags. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_crds which only lists CRDs, and describe_resource which is generic.

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 implies usage when detailed CRD info is needed, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternative tools. For example, if only instance counts are needed, count_custom_resources might be more appropriate, but no guidance is given.

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