Get a resource

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering the safety profile. The description adds two genuinely useful behavioral traits beyond those hints: secret values are redacted, and the response includes full spec/status, which an agent needs to set expectations. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core operation is front-loaded, and the important caveat about secret redaction is included without added noise.

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 single-resource read with 100% schema coverage and read-only annotations, the description covers identity, namespace eligibility, and return content. It does not specify error behavior such as not-found handling, but that is a minor gap and no output schema is present.

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 schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds value by clarifying the namespace rule—required for namespaced kinds, omitted for cluster-scoped—and by framing kind+name as the identity key, going beyond the baseline.

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?

States a specific verb ('Fetch'), resource ('single resource'), and key identifiers (kind, name, namespace), and names the return content (spec/status). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list_resources, which fetches a collection rather than one item.

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 communicates the canonical use case—fetching one resource by identity—and gives explicit namespace guidance: required for namespaced kinds, omitted for cluster-scoped. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the single-resource framing strongly implies when to use it over list_resources.

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