Lumino

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the tool retrieves details and lists output formats, but fails to describe critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or whether it's read-only or has side effects. For a tool interacting with Kubernetes/Tekton resources, this omission is significant, as the agent lacks necessary operational context.

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 well-structured with clear sections for Args and Returns, making it easy to parse. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds value by detailing parameters and output. However, the long list of resource types could be slightly condensed, and the lack of usage guidelines slightly reduces efficiency, but overall it remains concise and informative.

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 complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is largely complete. It explains parameters thoroughly and notes the return type, though the output schema handles return values. It lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines, but for a retrieval tool with detailed parameter info, it provides adequate coverage for basic use, missing only advanced operational details.

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 description adds substantial meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It enumerates all supported resource types for 'resource_type', specifies default values and options for 'namespace' and 'output_format', and clarifies the purpose of 'name'. This compensates fully for the schema's lack of descriptions, providing clear semantics for all parameters.

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 tool's purpose: 'Retrieve details about a Kubernetes/Tekton resource.' It specifies the verb ('retrieve') and resource type ('Kubernetes/Tekton resource'), making the intent unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_resources_by_labels' or 'list_pods_in_namespace', which might offer overlapping functionality, preventing a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lists many resource types but does not mention when to choose this over sibling tools such as 'list_pods_in_namespace' or 'search_resources_by_labels'. This lack of contextual guidance leaves the agent to infer usage, which is insufficient for optimal tool selection.

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