get_cluster_kubeconfig

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It adds two important behavioral traits: extraction happens 'in memory' (implying no persistent side effect) and the result is privileged ('cluster-admin credentials') with an explicit warning not to echo them. It does not cover prerequisites or failure modes, but the secret-handling disclosure is significant.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core extraction action and source are front-loaded, and the security warning is appended as a necessary, separate instruction. 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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the essential purpose, source, and security guidance, but it omits parameter semantics, prerequisites, and any pointer to sibling tools for alternative operations. It is minimally viable but not fully complete for an agent deciding how to invoke it correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds context by identifying the relevant artifact as a 'deploy job *-data.zip', which implies job_name and build_number identify the job and build. However, it does not explicitly define what each parameter means, which parameters are required to locate the zip, or how cluster_name factors in.

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 names a specific verb ('Extract'), a specific resource ('auth/kubeconfig and auth/kubeadmin-password'), and a specific source ('deploy job *-data.zip'). It is unmistakably distinct from siblings like get_cluster_info or get_build_status because it targets credential material from a deploy artifact.

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 phrase 'from a deploy job *-data.zip' gives clear context for when the tool is appropriate: after a deploy job produces its data zip. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the artifact-specific language effectively separates this from cluster-status and job-status siblings.

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