Lumino

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool's behavior ('searches system namespaces for TLS error patterns and correlates with certificate events') and output format ('Dict: TLS issues, affected pods, certificate problems, and remediation suggestions'), but doesn't mention potential side effects, permissions required, rate limits, or whether it's read-only vs. destructive. The description adds value but lacks comprehensive behavioral context for a diagnostic tool.

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 perfectly structured and concise. It starts with a clear purpose statement, explains the tool's behavior, lists parameters with helpful explanations, and describes the return format. Every sentence earns its place, with no wasted words or redundancy. The information is front-loaded with the most important details first.

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 (diagnostic investigation with 4 parameters) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, behavior, parameter semantics, and output structure. The main gap is lack of behavioral context like permissions or side effects, but with an output schema reducing the need to explain returns, this is reasonably complete for the agent's needs.

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 provides excellent parameter semantics beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains each parameter's purpose: 'search_pattern: TLS error pattern', 'time_range: Search time range', 'max_namespaces: Max namespaces to search', 'focus_on_system_namespaces: Prioritize system namespaces'. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions and adds meaningful context about how parameters affect the investigation.

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 with specific verbs ('investigate', 'searches', 'correlates') and resources ('TLS/certificate issues', 'system namespaces', 'TLS error patterns', 'certificate events'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'check_cluster_certificate_health' by focusing on investigation rather than health checking, and from log analysis tools by targeting TLS-specific patterns.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: 'Investigate TLS/certificate issues across the cluster with targeted search and analysis.' It implies usage when TLS problems are suspected, but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings, though the context suggests it's for diagnostic investigation rather than monitoring or general analysis.

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