List events

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds only 'recent' to what the schema already conveys, and omits whether this is a read-only call, what fields the events contain, how many are returned, and how 'recent' is bounded. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 one tightly written sentence that includes the action, the resource scope, and the main use case, legitimate without verbosity. Every clause 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?

The schema explains the required namespace and optional context, and the description tells the agent that this is for recent events and diagnostic issues. But there is no output schema and no mention of the shape of returned event objects, pagination, Limit, or sort order, leaving gaps for an agent to guess.

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 already documents both parameters (namespace, kube-config context) and covers the default behavior of context. The description adds no new parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('events in a namespace'), and adds a purpose ('useful for diagnosing failures'). It is clearly distinct from the sibling tools like list_pods or list_services. It doesn't explicitly name or contrast a sibling, but the resource name is unambiguous enough.

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?

'Useful for diagnosing failures' gives an implied use case, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over related tools like get_pod_logs or get_resource, nor any exclusions. The context is plausible, but not fully explicit.

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