arvan_iac_kube_linter

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

Annotations already mark it as read-only and non-destructive. Description adds 'for security/correctness' but provides no additional behavioral details (e.g., output format, network usage). Minimal value beyond 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?

Extremely concise single sentence. While efficient, it sacrifices necessary detail. However, it effectively communicates the core purpose without extraneous words.

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 tool with 3 parameters and no schema descriptions or output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to specify how to use the different input methods or what the linting output will contain.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the three parameters (manifest, files, directory). The agent has no context on how to provide input or what each parameter means, severely hindering correct invocation.

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?

Description clearly states the tool lints Kubernetes manifests for security/correctness with kube-linter, specifying the action and resource. However, it does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like arvan_iac_validate_kubernetes or arvan_iac_checkov, which may overlap.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as arvan_iac_validate_kubernetes or arvan_iac_tfsec. The description lacks context on scenarios or prerequisites.

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