describe_resource

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description is not required to restate safety. It adds the behavioral detail that it 'Returns the full object', which is useful. The description does not introduce any contradictions with annotations, and it provides enough context beyond the structured fields (e.g., that it works with CRDs).

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 that starts with the core purpose ('Fetch any Kubernetes resource') and then adds the essential qualifying detail about CRDs and required identifiers. There is zero wasted wording; every phrase earns its place.

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 tool's general scope, the description is complete for an agent to understand its usage: it fetches any resource, returns the full object, and the schema provides all parameter details. It might have mentioned that it supports both namespaced and cluster-scoped resources, but the schema already clarifies this via the optional namespace field. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the statement that it returns the full object, so no additional return-value documentation is needed.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by noting that it works for CRDs and providing examples (SealedSecret, Certificate), which clarifies the expected kind values. It also highlights the interplay of apiVersion, kind, and name, reinforcing the required parameters beyond the schema's individual descriptions.

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 action ('Fetch'), the resource ('any Kubernetes resource'), and the key identifying parameters (apiVersion, kind, name). It explicitly includes CRDs like SealedSecret or Certificate, which distinguishes it from sibling tools that target specific resource types (e.g., describe_pod, describe_argocd_app). The purpose is unambiguous and stands out from the siblings.

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 it can be used for any resource, but it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over the more specific describe tools (like describe_pod) or when not to use it. No alternatives or exclusions are stated, leaving the usage guidance somewhat implied rather than explicit.

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