pod_inspect_tool

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits like read-only safety, auth requirements, or error behavior. It only says 'get detailed information,' providing no side-effect or permission 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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It is efficient and readable, but it provides minimal added value beyond the tool name.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks usage context, behavioral details, and any mention of related tools, making it thin but not deficient.

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 schema covers the single parameter 'name' at 100% with 'Pod name or ID.' The description adds no additional parameter detail, so it relies on the schema, which is sufficient. Baseline of 3 applies due to high schema coverage.

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 uses a clear verb ('get') and resource ('pod'), specifying 'detailed information,' which aligns with the inspect semantics. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like pod_list_tool, but the 'name' parameter implies single-pod inspection, making the purpose clear.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool or how it differs from alternatives. The description simply states what it does without indicating prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives (e.g., use pod_list first to get names).

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