describe_pod

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds specific details about return content (per-container state, termination reasons, crash exit codes, conditions, events) which goes beyond annotations, providing useful behavioral transparency about what to expect from the tool.

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, compact sentence that immediately states the purpose and lists the specific details returned. No filler or redundancy. Perfectly front-loaded.

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 read-only describe tool, the description covers what it returns (per-container state, reasons, exit codes, conditions, events) and the scope (one pod). Given the annotations already indicate read-only, this is sufficient. Slight gap: it doesn't mention the namespace/name parameters explicitly, but schema covers that.

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 100%, so all three parameters (namespace, name) are fully described in the schema. The description does not add extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so it stays at the baseline of 3.

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 performs a 'deep-dive' on a single pod, specifying per-container state, waiting/termination reasons, last crash exit code, conditions, and recent events. This is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like list_pods (which lists) and get_events (which retrieves events).

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 for in-depth pod inspection, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like describe_resource or get_events. No exclusion criteria are given, so the agent must infer when this is the right tool.

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