Lumino

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.9.2
Disambiguation2/5
Multiple tools have overlapping purposes that could cause confusion. For example, 'adaptive_namespace_investigation', 'conservative_namespace_overview', and 'smart_get_namespace_events' all analyze namespace events with similar parameters. Similarly, 'analyze_pod_logs_hybrid', 'smart_summarize_pod_logs', and 'stream_analyze_pod_logs' all handle pod log analysis with overlapping functionality. While descriptions provide some differentiation, the boundaries between these tools are unclear.
Naming Consistency3/5
The naming conventions are mixed but generally readable. Most tools use snake_case (e.g., 'adaptive_namespace_investigation', 'analyze_failed_pipeline'), but there are deviations like 'ci_cd_performance_baselining_tool' with inconsistent underscores. Verb patterns vary: some start with verbs (analyze_, detect_, get_, list_), others are descriptive phrases (adaptive_namespace_investigation, conservative_namespace_overview). While not chaotic, the lack of a consistent pattern reduces predictability.
Tool Count2/5
With 37 tools, this server feels excessively heavy for its Kubernetes/Tekton monitoring and troubleshooting domain. Many tools appear to be minor variations of core functions (e.g., multiple namespace investigation tools, multiple pod log analyzers). The count suggests feature duplication rather than comprehensive coverage, making it difficult for agents to navigate efficiently. A more focused set of 15-20 tools would better serve the apparent scope.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface covers the Kubernetes/Tekton monitoring domain comprehensively. It includes resource retrieval (get_kubernetes_resource), listing operations (list_namespaces, list_pipelineruns), log analysis, event investigation, performance monitoring, and advanced features like predictive analytics and simulation. While there might be minor gaps in specific subdomains, the set supports complete troubleshooting workflows from detection to remediation across the CI/CD pipeline lifecycle.
Average 4/5 across 37 of 37 tools scored. Lowest: 2.9/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under Apache 2.0.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool analyzes logs to extract patterns and insights, but doesn't describe key behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only or mutative, performance characteristics (e.g., rate limits), error handling, or authentication needs. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first, followed by brief sections for arguments and returns. Each sentence adds value without redundancy, though the structure could be slightly more polished (e.g., integrating the return details more seamlessly).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (log analysis with one parameter), no annotations, and an output schema that defines the return structure, the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and basic parameter usage but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines, making it adequate but with clear gaps for effective agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds minimal semantic context beyond the input schema. It specifies that 'log_text' can be 'single entry, multiple lines, or full log file,' which provides some usage insight not in the schema (which has 0% description coverage). However, with only one parameter, the baseline is 4, but the description doesn't fully compensate for the schema's lack of details (e.g., format constraints), so a score of 3 reflects adequate but not comprehensive parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Analyze log text to extract error patterns and insights.' This specifies the verb ('analyze') and resource ('log text') with the goal of extracting patterns and insights. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'analyze_pod_logs_hybrid', 'detect_log_anomalies', or 'smart_summarize_pod_logs', which appear related to log analysis in the same context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 doesn't mention any specific context, prerequisites, or exclusions, and with many sibling tools related to log analysis (e.g., 'analyze_pod_logs_hybrid', 'detect_log_anomalies'), the lack of differentiation leaves the agent without clear usage instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers limited behavioral insight. It mentions the detection methods (error frequency, pattern repetition, timestamp analysis) and return structure, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what constitutes an anomaly. This is inadequate for a tool with potential complexity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and front-loaded: a clear purpose statement followed by 'Args:' and 'Returns:' sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but an output schema exists, the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose and parameters well, but lacks behavioral context (e.g., how anomalies are defined, performance implications). The output schema handles return values, so that gap is mitigated, but overall it's adequate with room for improvement.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
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 meaningful semantics: 'logs' as 'Raw log content (newline-separated entries)', 'baseline_patterns' as 'Optional expected error patterns for comparison', and 'severity_threshold' with values and sensitivity levels. This clarifies parameter purposes beyond the schema's basic types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Detect anomalies in log data using error frequency, pattern repetition, and timestamp analysis.' It specifies the verb ('detect'), resource ('anomalies in log data'), and methods, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'detect_anomalies' or 'analyze_logs', which appear related.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lists parameters and returns but doesn't mention sibling tools or contexts where this tool is preferred, such as for anomaly detection versus general log analysis.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'ML-powered event analytics' and what features can be included, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this is read-only or mutating, permission requirements, rate limits, computational cost, or what happens when defaults are used. For a complex 7-parameter tool with ML components, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a clear purpose statement upfront, followed by organized parameter and return sections. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information. It could be slightly more concise by combining some parameter explanations, but the structure makes it easy to parse and understand the tool's functionality.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, ML components, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema (implied by 'Returns: Dict'), the description is moderately complete. It thoroughly documents parameters and states the return type, but lacks behavioral context and usage guidance. For such a sophisticated tool, more information about performance characteristics, limitations, or typical use cases would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by documenting all 7 parameters in the 'Args' section with clear explanations, defaults, and examples. It adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema: explaining what 'namespace' is for, providing time period examples, clarifying boolean toggle purposes, and defining analysis_depth options. This is excellent parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool performs 'Advanced ML-powered event analytics with log/metrics integration and runbook suggestions' - a specific verb ('analyze') with resources ('event analytics') and methods ('ML-powered'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'analyze_logs' or 'detect_anomalies' by emphasizing ML, correlation, and runbook generation. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'progressive_event_analysis' or 'adaptive_namespace_investigation' which might be similar.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. With many sibling tools for analysis (e.g., 'analyze_logs', 'detect_anomalies', 'progressive_event_analysis'), there's no indication of what makes this tool unique in terms of use cases, prerequisites, or trade-offs. The agent must infer usage from the name and description alone without explicit direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'progressive event analysis' and 'correlation detection' but doesn't explain what these mean operationally - whether this is a read-only analysis, if it modifies data, what permissions are required, or how results are structured. The return statement is generic ('Dict: Analysis results based on selected level') without detailing output format or behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a clear opening statement followed by organized 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Each sentence adds value, though the opening statement could be slightly more specific about what 'progressive' means in this context. The parameter explanations are efficient and directly informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 6-parameter tool with no annotations, the description does well on parameters but lacks behavioral context. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to detail return values, but the description should still explain what 'progressive analysis' entails, how correlation detection works, and any operational considerations. With many similar sibling tools, more differentiation would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides excellent parameter semantics despite 0% schema description coverage. It clearly explains each parameter's purpose: 'namespace: Kubernetes namespace to analyze', 'analysis_level' with its four possible values, 'time_period' format examples, 'event_filters' with concrete examples, 'seed_event_id' purpose, and 'focus_areas' with default values. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool performs 'progressive event analysis with multiple detail levels and correlation detection' in a Kubernetes namespace, which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'smart_get_namespace_events' or 'advanced_event_analytics', which appear to offer similar event-related functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. With many sibling tools offering event analysis, log analysis, and namespace investigation capabilities, there's no indication of this tool's specific use cases, prerequisites, or how it differs from tools like 'adaptive_namespace_investigation' or 'advanced_event_analytics'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 mentions performing 'log analysis, resource checks, event correlation, and provides remediation suggestions,' which gives some insight into the tool's actions. However, it lacks critical behavioral details such as whether it's read-only or mutative, permission requirements, rate limits, or error handling. For a complex analysis tool with 7 parameters, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with a clear purpose statement, followed by a bullet-point-like breakdown of parameters and returns. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant information. It could be slightly more concise by integrating the parameter explanations more seamlessly, but overall it's efficient and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It explains all parameters in detail and outlines the return structure ('RCA report with summary, timeline, root cause, diagnostics, and remediation'). The output schema reduces the need to fully document returns, but the description could better address behavioral aspects like execution time or resource intensity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds significant value beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It provides detailed explanations for all 7 parameters, including their purposes, optional/default behaviors, and allowed values (e.g., 'quick', 'standard', or 'deep' for investigation_depth). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions and helps the agent understand how to use each parameter correctly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Generate automated Root Cause Analysis (RCA) report for pipeline/pod failures.' It specifies the verb ('generate') and resource ('RCA report'), and mentions the scope ('pipeline/pod failures'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'analyze_failed_pipeline' or 'analyze_pod_logs_hybrid', which prevents 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. With many sibling tools focused on analysis (e.g., 'analyze_failed_pipeline', 'analyze_logs'), there's no indication of how this tool's automated RCA generation differs or when it's preferred. The description only states what it does, not when to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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.
Conciseness4/5
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.
Completeness4/5
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.
Parameters5/5
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.
Purpose4/5
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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool searches and returns results with 'analysis, and recommendations', but lacks critical details: whether it's read-only or mutating, permission requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, error handling, or what 'analysis' entails. For a complex search tool with 9 parameters, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by 'Args:' and 'Returns:' sections. Each sentence earns its place by explaining parameters or outputs. It could be slightly more concise by combining some parameter explanations, but overall it's efficient and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, no annotations, but has output schema), the description is partially complete. It excels in parameter semantics but lacks behavioral context (e.g., safety, performance). The output schema existence means the description doesn't need to detail return values, but it should cover more operational aspects for a search tool in a Kubernetes context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It provides detailed semantics for all 9 parameters: examples for 'resource_types' and 'label_selectors', defaults for optional parameters, and explanations of each parameter's role (e.g., 'include_metadata_only: Return only metadata'). This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
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 a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('Kubernetes resources by labels'), specifying it works 'across multiple resource types and namespaces'. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'list_pods_in_namespace' or 'get_kubernetes_resource' that focus on single resource types or specific resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 doesn't mention prerequisites, compare to sibling tools (e.g., 'list_namespaces' for namespace listing or 'semantic_log_search' for log-based searches), or specify scenarios where this search is preferred over other investigation methods.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'NLP for query interpretation, Kubernetes/Tekton entity recognition, and relevance ranking,' which adds some behavioral context. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what 'semantic understanding' entails operationally, leaving significant gaps for a tool with 7 parameters.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections: purpose, behavioral notes, args, and returns. Each sentence adds value, such as explaining the semantic approach and parameter defaults. It could be slightly more concise by integrating the behavioral notes into the purpose statement, but overall it's efficient and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 7 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but with an output schema provided, the description does a good job covering inputs and outputs. The 'Returns' section outlines the response structure, reducing the need for further explanation. However, it lacks context on performance, limitations, or integration with sibling tools, leaving minor gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
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 provides a detailed 'Args' section explaining each parameter's purpose and defaults, adding meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema. For example, it clarifies 'time_range' options and 'namespaces' auto-detection. This nearly compensates for the lack of schema descriptions, though some nuances like 'severity_levels' values remain unspecified.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search logs using natural language queries with semantic understanding beyond keyword matching.' It specifies the verb ('search'), resource ('logs'), and distinguishing capability ('semantic understanding beyond keyword matching'), which differentiates it from simple keyword-based search tools among its siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. With many sibling tools like 'analyze_logs', 'analyze_pod_logs_hybrid', and 'detect_log_anomalies', there is no indication of scenarios where semantic search is preferred over other log analysis methods, nor any prerequisites or exclusions mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 what the tool analyzes ('operator conditions, versions, and dependencies') and outlines the return structure, which helps understand its read-only nature and output format. However, it lacks details on permissions needed, rate limits, or whether it performs active checks versus querying cached data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with the core purpose, adds analytical scope, then details parameters and returns in labeled sections. While efficient, the 'Analyzes operator conditions, versions, and dependencies.' sentence could be integrated more smoothly with the opening statement.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, but with output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, parameters, and return structure. The output schema existence means the description doesn't need to detail return values, though it could benefit from more behavioral context about how the check is performed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
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. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining all 5 parameters with clear purposes and default values (e.g., 'filter_degraded: Only show operators with issues'). This adds significant value over the bare schema properties.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Check health and status of OpenShift cluster operators for platform functionality.' This specifies the verb ('check'), resource ('OpenShift cluster operators'), and scope ('platform functionality'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_machine_config_pool_status' or 'check_cluster_certificate_health' which also check cluster health aspects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. While it mentions analyzing 'operator conditions, versions, and dependencies,' it doesn't specify scenarios where this tool is preferred over other cluster health tools in the sibling list, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the use of 'anomaly detection algorithms' and 'ML analysis', which gives some behavioral context. However, it lacks critical details like computational cost, permission requirements, whether it's read-only or mutating, rate limits, or how predictions are generated. The description adds value but doesn't fully compensate for the absence of annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a clear purpose statement, method explanation, parameter details, and return value overview. Each sentence adds value, and the parameter documentation is organized. It could be slightly more concise by integrating the parameter explanations more seamlessly, but overall it's efficient and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, ML-based prediction), the description does a good job covering inputs and outputs. The parameter semantics are fully documented, and the 'Returns' section outlines the response structure. With an output schema present, the description doesn't need to detail return values further. However, it lacks usage context and some behavioral transparency, keeping it from a perfect score.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides comprehensive parameter documentation in the 'Args' section, detailing all 8 parameters with their purposes, allowed values, and defaults. Since schema description coverage is 0% (titles only, no descriptions), the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter's role, making it easy for an agent to understand what each input controls.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Predict failures using ML analysis of historical log patterns before critical outages occur.' It specifies the verb ('predict failures'), resource ('historical log patterns'), and method ('ML analysis'), making it distinct from simpler analysis tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'detect_anomalies' or 'detect_log_anomalies', which may have overlapping functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. With many sibling tools focused on log analysis, anomaly detection, and failure investigation, there's no indication of this tool's specific context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions what the tool does (analysis, fetching details, providing recommendations) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires specific permissions, has rate limits, modifies resources, or handles edge cases. For a diagnostic tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by clear parameter and return value sections. Every sentence earns its place: the first states the overall purpose, the second elaborates on key functions, and the structured sections provide essential details without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (root cause analysis), lack of annotations, and presence of an output schema (which documents return values), the description is reasonably complete. It explains the purpose, parameters, and return structure. However, for a diagnostic tool with no behavioral annotations, it could benefit from more operational context like prerequisites or limitations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by clearly explaining both parameters in the Args section: 'namespace: Kubernetes namespace of the PipelineRun' and 'pipeline_run: Name of the failed PipelineRun'. This adds meaningful semantic context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't provide format examples or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('perform root cause analysis'), target resource ('failed Tekton PipelineRun'), and scope ('fetches pipeline/task details, analyzes logs for errors, provides remediation recommendations'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'analyze_logs' or 'get_pipelinerun_logs' by focusing specifically on root cause analysis of failed pipelines rather than general log analysis or status retrieval.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context ('failed Tekton PipelineRun') but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'analyze_logs', 'get_pipelinerun_logs', or 'find_pipeline'. It provides basic context but lacks explicit guidance on tool selection criteria or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses return format and error handling, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or side effects. It adequately describes output behavior but misses operational constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Front-loaded with purpose, followed by structured Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value: the first defines scope, the second explains the parameter, and the third details return format and error handling—no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but an output schema exists, the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, parameter meaning, and return values, though it could benefit from more behavioral context like authentication or limitations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining the single parameter 'namespace' as 'Kubernetes namespace to query', adding clear meaning beyond the schema's title. For a tool with only one parameter, this provides sufficient semantic context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('List Tekton PipelineRuns'), resource ('in a namespace'), and scope ('with status and timing details'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_tekton_pipeline_runs_status' by emphasizing listing with detailed metadata rather than just status.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_recent_pipeline_runs' or 'find_pipeline'. The description implies usage for listing with details but lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation by using 'List', but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or pagination. The return format is detailed, which adds some value, but key operational aspects are missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by concise sections for arguments and returns. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it easy to scan and understand.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (detailed in the Returns section), the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, parameter semantics, and return values adequately, though it lacks usage guidelines and some behavioral context, which holds it back from a perfect score.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining the single parameter 'namespace' as 'Kubernetes namespace to query', adding clear semantic meaning beyond the schema's basic type definition. With only one parameter, this is sufficient for baseline understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('List all pods'), resource ('in a Kubernetes namespace'), and scope ('with status and placement info'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'list_namespaces' or 'analyze_pod_logs_hybrid' which serve different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it's clear this lists pods, there's no mention of when to choose it over other pod-related tools like 'analyze_pod_logs_hybrid' or 'smart_summarize_pod_logs', nor any prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 mentions 'progressive analysis and token budget management' and that it 'prioritizes failed/error pods, correlates events,' which gives some behavioral context. However, it doesn't address important aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential performance impact, authentication requirements, or rate limits. The description adds value but leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured with a clear opening statement, usage context, parameter explanations, and return value description. Every sentence serves a purpose, and information is well-organized with labeled sections ('Args:', 'Returns:'). No wasted words or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (adaptive investigation with 5 parameters), no annotations, and an output schema exists (so return values don't need explanation), the description does well. It covers purpose, usage context, all parameters with semantics, and mentions the return structure. However, for a tool with no annotations and significant behavioral implications, it could better address safety, permissions, or operational constraints.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining all 5 parameters in the 'Args' section with meaningful descriptions and default values. It adds substantial semantic context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't provide examples or format details for parameters like 'focus_areas' (which accepts an array or null).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool performs 'adaptive namespace investigation with progressive analysis and token budget management' and specifies it's 'best for medium namespaces (5-30 pods)' with prioritization of 'failed/error pods' and event correlation. This provides a specific verb+resource+scope, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish from all sibling tools like 'conservative_namespace_overview' or 'smart_get_namespace_events'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context about when to use this tool ('best for medium namespaces (5-30 pods)') and what it prioritizes ('failed/error pods, correlates events'). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternative tools from the sibling list for different scenarios, which prevents a perfect score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 what the tool analyzes (pool status, update progress, configuration drift) and outlines the return structure, but doesn't mention permission requirements, rate limits, or whether this is a read-only operation. The description adds some behavioral context but leaves important operational details unspecified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and efficiently organized. It begins with a clear purpose statement, then provides parameter explanations in a bullet-like format, and concludes with return value information. Every sentence serves a specific purpose with zero wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, but with output schema), the description is mostly complete. It explains parameters thoroughly and outlines the return structure. However, it could better address behavioral aspects like permissions or operational constraints, which are important for a monitoring tool in a cluster environment.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides excellent parameter semantics that fully compensate for the 0% schema description coverage. Each of the 5 parameters is clearly explained with default values and practical meaning (e.g., 'include_node_details: Include node status per pool', 'filter_updating: Only show updating pools'). This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
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 ('monitor', 'analyzes') and resources ('OpenShift Machine Config Pools', 'node configuration and update rollouts'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on machine config pool monitoring rather than logs, events, or other cluster resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 doesn't mention sibling tools like get_openshift_cluster_operator_status or other monitoring tools, nor does it specify prerequisites or appropriate contexts for monitoring machine config pools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions the analysis method ('time-series analysis') and output structure, but lacks details on permissions needed, rate limits, whether it's read-only or mutative, execution time, or error conditions. The behavioral disclosure is incomplete for a forecasting tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and appropriately sized. It begins with a clear purpose statement, explains the methodology, provides detailed parameter documentation, and specifies the return structure. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, forecasting functionality) and the presence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It explains parameters thoroughly and mentions the return structure. However, without annotations and given the forecasting nature, it could benefit from more behavioral context about reliability, data sources, or limitations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing detailed parameter explanations. Each of the 7 parameters is clearly documented with meaning, allowed values, and defaults (e.g., 'forecast_horizon: Forecast window - "1h", "6h", "24h", "7d", "30d" (default: "24h")'). This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
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 ('forecast', 'analyze', 'predict') and resources ('resource bottlenecks', 'CPU, memory, disk, and network capacity constraints'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'check_resource_constraints' by focusing on forecasting rather than current state checking.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or compare with sibling tools like 'check_resource_constraints' or 'predictive_log_analyzer', leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 mentions 'processes logs in manageable chunks for memory efficiency and real-time insights,' which hints at performance characteristics, but does not cover critical aspects like error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens if parameters conflict (e.g., 'time_window' vs. 'since_seconds'). It adds some context but leaves significant gaps for a tool with 14 parameters.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter details and return values. It is appropriately sized for a complex tool, though the parameter list is lengthy; every sentence adds value, and it avoids unnecessary repetition, making it efficient and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (14 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is fairly complete. It explains the purpose, parameters, and return structure, though it could benefit from more behavioral context (e.g., error cases). The output schema reduces the need to detail return values, but the description still provides a high-level overview of the return keys, enhancing completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description includes an 'Args' section that lists all 14 parameters with brief explanations, such as default values and allowed values for 'analysis_mode.' Since schema description coverage is 0%, this compensates well by providing essential semantics beyond the schema's titles, though it lacks deeper details like format examples or interdependencies between parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
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 ('stream and analyze pod logs in chunks') and distinguishes it from siblings like 'analyze_pod_logs_hybrid' and 'smart_summarize_pod_logs' by emphasizing chunk-based processing and progressive pattern detection. It effectively communicates the core functionality without being tautological.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage through terms like 'real-time insights' and 'memory efficiency,' suggesting when this tool might be preferred (e.g., for large logs or streaming). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'analyze_pod_logs_hybrid' or 'smart_summarize_pod_logs,' leaving the agent to infer based on context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 operation as a list function, which implies read-only behavior, and specifies sorting and scoping ('across all accessible namespaces'), adding useful context. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error handling, leaving gaps in behavioral transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by clear sections for arguments and returns. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (list operation with sorting and scoping), no annotations, and an output schema that details the return structure, the description is mostly complete. It covers the purpose, parameter semantics, and return format, but could improve by addressing usage guidelines and behavioral aspects like error handling or permissions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning beyond the input schema by explaining the 'limit' parameter's purpose ('Max PipelineRuns to retrieve') and default value, which is not covered in the schema (0% description coverage). Since there is only one parameter, the description compensates well, though it could provide more context on valid ranges or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List recent Tekton PipelineRuns'), resource ('PipelineRuns'), scope ('across all accessible namespaces'), and sorting criteria ('sorted by start time'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'list_pipelineruns' by specifying the 'recent' and 'sorted' aspects, providing specific differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving recent PipelineRuns sorted by start time, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_pipelineruns' or 'get_tekton_pipeline_runs_status'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage context somewhat implied rather than clearly defined.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: adaptive volume management, automatic time window selection, multi-pass processing, and default behaviors for unspecified parameters. It explains what happens when time constraints aren't specified and describes the analysis approach. However, it doesn't mention performance characteristics, rate limits, or potential side effects on the system.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a clear purpose statement, usage context, detailed parameter explanations, and return value description. It's appropriately sized for a complex tool with many parameters. Minor improvement could be made by front-loading the most critical information more prominently, but overall it's efficient with minimal waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (12 parameters, no annotations), the description provides substantial context: clear purpose, behavioral traits, detailed parameter semantics, and return format. With an output schema present, it doesn't need to explain return values in detail. The main gap is lack of explicit comparison with sibling tools, but otherwise it's quite complete for the tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage and 12 parameters, the description provides excellent parameter semantics beyond the bare schema. It explains the purpose of each parameter, provides default values, clarifies conditional usage ('Only if user specifies...'), and gives examples for enums like summary_level options. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool performs 'adaptive pod log analysis with automatic volume management and multi-pass processing' - a specific verb (analyze) and resource (pod logs). It distinguishes from siblings like 'analyze_pod_logs_hybrid' and 'stream_analyze_pod_logs' by emphasizing adaptive volume management and multi-pass processing. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all similar tools in the sibling list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use this tool through its adaptive features ('When no time constraints specified, automatically estimates volume...'), suggesting it's best for exploratory analysis without precise time bounds. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to choose this versus alternatives like 'analyze_pod_logs_hybrid' or 'stream_analyze_pod_logs', nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: intelligent strategy selection, caching capability, and context/urgency-based approach. However, it doesn't mention permissions needed, rate limits, whether it's read-only or destructive, performance characteristics, or error handling. For a complex 8-parameter tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly structured and concise. It begins with a clear purpose statement, follows with key behavioral context, then provides comprehensive parameter documentation in a clean Args/Returns format. Every sentence earns its place, with no wasted words or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, no annotations, but with output schema), the description is quite complete. It explains all parameters thoroughly and documents the return structure. However, for a tool with no annotations and significant behavioral complexity (strategy selection, caching, urgency handling), it could benefit from more operational context about performance, limitations, or error scenarios.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides excellent parameter semantics beyond the 0% schema coverage. It explains all 8 parameters with meaningful context: namespace and pod_name are required identifiers, container_name is for multi-container pods, strategy has 4 specific options, request_type has 3 purposes, urgency has 4 levels, use_cache enables intelligent caching, and custom_params allows strategy customization. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool analyzes pod logs with hybrid strategy selection and caching ('Hybrid log analyzer with intelligent strategy selection and caching'). It specifies the resource (pod logs) and key capabilities (strategy selection, caching). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'analyze_logs', 'smart_summarize_pod_logs', or 'stream_analyze_pod_logs' which appear related.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context about when to use different strategies based on urgency and request type ('Automatically selects best analysis approach based on context and urgency'). It mentions strategy options and request types, giving implicit guidance. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions correlation methods (labels, annotations, artifact references) and return content (pipeline flow, artifacts, bottlenecks, summary), but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error handling for this complex tracing operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement, followed by separate 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to scan and understand.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a complex tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description provides good parameter semantics and return overview. However, it could better address behavioral aspects like performance implications of 'deep' tracing or authentication requirements.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description provides detailed explanations for all 8 parameters, including valid values for 'trace_type' and 'trace_depth', default values, and behavioral implications like 'skips auto-detection' for namespaces.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
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 a specific verb ('trace') and resource ('logical operation as it flows through pipelines'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on correlation across pipelines rather than single-pipeline analysis like 'find_pipeline' or 'list_pipelineruns'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for tracing operations through pipelines but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'find_pipeline' or 'list_pipelineruns', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
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 effectively describes key behaviors: the alphabetical sorting of results and handling of edge cases (empty list on access denial or cluster unreachability). However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination, which are common for list operations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by return details. Every sentence adds value—none are redundant or verbose. It efficiently communicates essential information without waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is largely complete. It explains the return format and error handling, though it could benefit from mentioning authentication or cluster context requirements. The output schema likely covers return structure, reducing the need for detailed output explanation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the inputs. The description adds no parameter-specific information, which is appropriate here. A baseline of 4 is applied as it compensates adequately for the lack of parameters by focusing on output behavior.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('List all namespaces') and resource ('in the Kubernetes cluster'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'list_pods_in_namespace' or 'smart_get_namespace_events'. It uses precise language that leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving namespace lists but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'conservative_namespace_overview' or 'adaptive_namespace_investigation'. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided, leaving usage context inferred rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses what gets scanned (TLS secrets, system certificates) and that it provides renewal recommendations, but doesn't mention permissions needed, rate limits, whether it's read-only or has side effects, or how it handles large clusters.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with purpose statement, scope clarification, and organized parameter documentation. Every sentence earns its place, and information is front-loaded with the core purpose first.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 6 parameters with no schema descriptions and an output schema present, the description does an excellent job explaining parameters and return format. However, for a cluster scanning tool with no annotations, it could better address behavioral aspects like performance implications or authorization requirements.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing clear semantic explanations for all 6 parameters, including default values, valid options for certificate_types, and the meaning of each threshold. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('scan for expiring certificates'), resource ('across the cluster'), and purpose ('to prevent service disruptions'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on certificate health rather than logs, events, or other resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context (preventing service disruptions) but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'investigate_tls_certificate_issues' or other diagnostic tools. It provides clear purpose but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses behavioral traits by listing what it identifies (e.g., pending pods, OOMKilled containers) and the return structure, but it does not cover aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, or whether it performs read-only operations. The description adds value by specifying the tool's focus and output, but gaps remain in 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose followed by details in bullet points and a clear return structure. Every sentence earns its place by adding specific information without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (diagnostic analysis), lack of annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough. It explains what the tool checks, the single parameter's role, and the return keys, which aligns well with the output schema detailing the response structure. No significant gaps are present for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning beyond the input schema by explaining that the 'namespace' parameter is for 'Kubernetes namespace to inspect,' which clarifies its purpose. With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, the description compensates well by providing context, though it could include more details like format or examples. The baseline is high due to low parameter count and effective compensation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
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 a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('resource constraints in a namespace'), and it distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on pipeline-impacting constraints rather than general analysis or listing functions. It explicitly lists what it identifies (e.g., pending pods, OOMKilled containers), making the scope precise and differentiated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
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 ('that may impact pipelines'), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among the sibling tools. While it implies usage for pipeline-related issues, it lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to tools like 'analyze_failed_pipeline' or 'conservative_namespace_overview'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 key traits: optimization for token limits, smart sampling of critical pods, and focus on rapid issue detection. However, it lacks details on permissions required, rate limits, error handling, or whether the analysis is read-only or modifies resources. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves gaps in understanding operational constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose, followed by key behavior, and then structured sections for args and returns. Each sentence earns its place by adding value, such as explaining optimization and sampling strategy, without redundancy. The bullet-point style for args and returns enhances readability without unnecessary verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (analysis tool with 4 parameters), no annotations, and an output schema present (which covers return values), the description is largely complete. It explains the tool's purpose, usage context, parameters, and return structure. However, it could improve by addressing missing behavioral aspects like authentication needs or performance implications, though the output schema reduces the need for return value details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
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 fully. It adds significant meaning beyond the schema by explaining each parameter: 'namespace' as the Kubernetes namespace to analyze, 'max_pods' as the maximum pods to analyze with a default, 'focus_areas' as areas to focus on with default values, and 'sample_strategy' with options like 'smart' and 'recent.' This provides clear semantics that the schema alone does not offer.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool performs 'Conservative namespace analysis optimized for large namespaces with strict token limits' and 'Smart-samples critical pods for rapid issue detection.' It specifies the verb ('analyze'), resource ('Kubernetes namespace'), and scope ('large namespaces'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'list_namespaces' or 'list_pods_in_namespace' by emphasizing analysis over listing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for usage: 'optimized for large namespaces with strict token limits' and 'for rapid issue detection.' It implies when to use this tool (e.g., for quick analysis in constrained environments) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings, such as 'adaptive_namespace_investigation' or 'smart_summarize_pod_logs,' which could offer more detailed insights.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it's a read-only analysis tool (implied by 'detect'), uses statistical analysis with a specific threshold (2.5 standard deviations), analyzes recent runs (default 50), and returns structured anomaly details. It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or data retention policies, but covers the core behavior adequately.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly structured and concise: purpose statement first, method and threshold second, parameters third, return format fourth. Every sentence earns its place with zero wasted words, and information is front-loaded appropriately for agent comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (statistical analysis), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (implied by the Returns section), the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, method, parameters, and return structure, providing sufficient context for an agent to understand when and how to use this tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
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 successfully adds meaning for both parameters: 'namespace' is explained as 'Kubernetes namespace to analyze' and 'limit' as 'Max recent PipelineRuns to analyze (default: 50)'. This provides clear semantic context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't specify format constraints or valid ranges.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('detect anomalies'), the target resources ('Tekton PipelineRuns/TaskRuns'), and the method ('z-score statistical analysis'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'detect_log_anomalies' by focusing on execution time analysis rather than log patterns, and from 'analyze_failed_pipeline' by targeting statistical outliers rather than failures.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context through the statistical method and threshold (2.5 standard deviations), suggesting it's for identifying performance outliers. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'ci_cd_performance_baselining_tool' or 'list_recent_pipeline_runs', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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.
Conciseness5/5
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.
Completeness4/5
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.
Parameters5/5
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.
Purpose5/5
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.
Usage Guidelines4/5
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.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It describes the read-only nature ('List', 'query') and the return format, but doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions that would be crucial for an agent to use this tool effectively.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly structured and concise. It starts with the core purpose, then provides clear parameter explanations in an Args section, and concludes with return value details. Every sentence earns its place with zero wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity, no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (which covers return values), the description is mostly complete. It explains parameters well and provides return format details. However, it lacks some behavioral context that would be helpful for an agent, such as error handling or performance characteristics.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides excellent parameter semantics despite 0% schema description coverage. It clearly explains what 'namespace' and 'pipeline_run' parameters mean ('Kubernetes namespace to query', 'Optional PipelineRun name to filter by'), adding significant value beyond what the bare schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('List Tekton TaskRuns'), the resource ('in a namespace'), and distinguishes it from siblings by mentioning optional filtering by PipelineRun. It provides a complete picture of what the tool does beyond just the name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states when to use optional filtering ('optionally filtered by a specific PipelineRun'), providing clear context. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use this tool or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: 'automatic endpoint discovery and authentication,' which are not inferable from the schema. However, it does not mention rate limits, error handling, or side effects, leaving some gaps in behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a clear purpose statement, behavioral note, and organized parameter list. It is appropriately sized but could be slightly more concise by integrating the 'Returns' section more seamlessly, though it remains efficient and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (10 parameters, no annotations), the description is complete: it explains purpose, behavior, all parameters with semantics, and mentions return values. With an output schema present, it need not detail return structure, making it adequately comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate fully. It provides detailed semantics for all 10 parameters, including defaults, formats (e.g., ISO 8601), and options (e.g., 'instant' or 'range'), adding significant value beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Execute PromQL queries against Prometheus for cluster metrics.' It specifies the verb ('Execute'), resource ('PromQL queries'), and target ('Prometheus for cluster metrics'), making it distinct from sibling tools that focus on logs, events, pipelines, or other resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by mentioning 'Supports instant and range queries,' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'analyze_logs' or 'detect_anomalies.' It provides context for query types but lacks explicit guidance on tool selection among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it explains the data sources (Prometheus with Kubernetes fallback), describes the alerting mechanism ('flag runs deviating'), and mentions the return structure. However, it doesn't cover rate limits, authentication needs, or potential side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured with a purpose statement, behavioral context, parameter documentation, and return format - all in appropriate sections. Every sentence earns its place, and the information is front-loaded with the core purpose stated first.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, behavior, all parameters with semantics, and mentions the return structure, while the output schema handles return value details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing comprehensive parameter documentation in the 'Args' section. Each of the 6 parameters is clearly explained with acceptable values, defaults, and semantics, adding significant value beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
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 ('establish performance baselines', 'flag runs deviating') and resources ('pipelines', 'historical norms'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on performance baselining rather than investigation, analysis, or monitoring functions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context through its data source explanation ('Uses Prometheus metrics... Falls back to Kubernetes API'), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'analyze_failed_pipeline' or 'detect_anomalies'. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses some behavioral traits like cluster-wide queries, performance considerations for include_taskruns, and API fetch limits. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation (though 'Find' implies reading).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly structured with a clear purpose statement, behavioral context, organized parameter documentation, and return value specification. Every sentence adds value with zero redundancy. The Args/Returns sections provide excellent organization without verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, cluster-wide search functionality) and the presence of an output schema (Returns section), the description provides complete context. It explains what the tool does, how to use parameters, performance considerations, and what to expect in return, making it fully self-contained for agent understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing detailed explanations for all 6 parameters. Each parameter gets clear semantic meaning beyond just naming, including default values, purpose, and performance implications (e.g., 'default: False for performance' for include_taskruns).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Find Tekton pipelines matching a pattern'), the resource ('Tekton pipelines'), and scope ('across all accessible namespaces'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'list_pipelineruns' by emphasizing pattern-based searching rather than simple listing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context about when to use this tool ('Searches PipelineRuns/TaskRuns by name, labels, or annotations using cluster-wide queries'), but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention specific alternatives among the many sibling tools. The performance implication with 'include_taskruns' is helpful but not comprehensive guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by specifying the tool's scope (cluster-wide), what data it collects (counts, recent failures, long-running pipelines), and default behaviors. However, it doesn't mention potential performance impacts of scanning multiple namespaces or any authentication/rate limit considerations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by organized Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value: the first explains what the tool does, the parameter explanations clarify controls, and the return section documents output structure without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, cluster-wide scanning), the description provides complete context: clear purpose, detailed parameter semantics, and comprehensive return structure. With an output schema present, the description appropriately focuses on explaining what the tool does rather than re-describing return values.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining all 5 parameters with clear purposes and default values. Each parameter's role in controlling the scope and output of the status summary is explicitly documented, adding significant value beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'cluster-wide status summary of all Tekton PipelineRuns and TaskRuns', specifying what information is included (running/succeeded/failed counts, recent failures, long-running pipelines). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_pipelineruns' or 'list_taskruns' by focusing on aggregated status rather than listing individual resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for monitoring cluster-wide Tekton pipeline health with aggregated metrics, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'list_pipelineruns' for detailed inspection or 'analyze_failed_pipeline' for root cause analysis. No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
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 effectively describes key behaviors: real-time operation, dependency mapping, permission handling ('skip_on_permission_denied'), and output formats. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication requirements, or performance implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by parameter details and return information. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, no annotations), the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, parameters with semantics, and return values. The presence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to detail return structure, and it adequately addresses the gaps from missing annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing clear semantics for all 7 parameters. It explains each parameter's purpose, default values, and important notes (e.g., 'secrets are NOT included by default'), adding significant value beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
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 ('Generate', 'Maps') and resources ('Kubernetes/Tekton components', 'Services, Deployments, Pipelines, PVCs'), including the mechanism ('via ownerReferences and selectors'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on real-time dependency graph generation rather than analysis, logging, or resource listing functions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for mapping component relationships in Kubernetes/Tekton environments, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_kubernetes_resource' or 'pipeline_tracer'. It mentions filtering capabilities but lacks guidance on prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it's a simulation tool (non-destructive), uses 'Monte Carlo simulation and load modeling based on historical data', and mentions risk assessment. However, it doesn't cover permissions needed, rate limits, or computational requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly structured: purpose statement first, technical method second, then parameter details, and finally return format. Every sentence earns its place with zero waste, and information is well-organized for quick comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters including nested objects), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It explains the simulation methodology, all parameters, and the return structure, making it self-sufficient for agent understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing detailed parameter explanations in the 'Args' section, including all 6 parameters with their purposes, types, and default values. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Simulate impact of configuration changes before applying to live system with risk assessment.' It specifies the verb ('simulate'), resource ('configuration changes'), and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on pre-application simulation rather than live analysis or investigation tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context ('before applying to live system') but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'check_resource_constraints' or 'resource_bottleneck_forecaster'. It provides some guidance through the purpose statement but lacks explicit comparisons or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so effectively by disclosing key behavioral traits: it fetches logs from all pods, prioritizes failed pods, manages token budgets automatically under certain conditions, and returns a dictionary with metadata. It also mentions adaptive volume management, which adds context beyond basic functionality. However, it lacks details on error handling or rate limits, which could be important for a tool interacting with Kubernetes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by key behavioral details, then a structured list of args and returns. Every sentence earns its place by adding value, with no redundant or vague language, making it efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (9 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is complete enough: it explains the tool's purpose, behavior, all parameters, and return structure. The output schema exists, so the description need not detail return values beyond the high-level summary provided. It covers essential context for a log-fetching tool in a Kubernetes environment.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, which it does by listing all 9 parameters with brief explanations (e.g., 'Clean and format logs', 'Lines from end', 'Maximum tokens for output'). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's titles and types, clarifying defaults and optional usage. However, it does not provide examples or deeper semantics for complex parameters like 'since_time' format, leaving some gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Fetch logs from all pods in a Tekton PipelineRun') and resource ('Tekton PipelineRun'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'analyze_pod_logs_hybrid' or 'smart_summarize_pod_logs' by specifying it's for PipelineRun logs with adaptive volume management. The verb 'fetch' is precise and the scope is well-defined.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context on when to use this tool ('with adaptive volume management') and mentions prioritization of failed pods and token budget management, which helps differentiate it from simpler log-fetching tools. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the siblings, such as 'analyze_logs' or 'get_tekton_pipeline_runs_status', which could provide more precise guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well. It discloses key behavioral traits: adaptive volume estimation, smart time window application, prioritization of errors/warnings, and token-limited sampling. It also mentions the return format includes 'insights and recommendations.' However, it doesn't cover potential side effects, rate limits, or authentication requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly structured and concise. It begins with a clear purpose statement, follows with usage guidelines, then provides parameter semantics in a clean format, and ends with return value information. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (adaptive analysis with 9 parameters), no annotations, but with an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, parameters, and behavioral traits well. The output schema handles return values, so the description doesn't need to detail them. However, for a tool with no annotations, it could mention more about error handling or constraints.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage for 9 parameters, the description compensates excellently. It provides semantic meaning for all parameters: explains when to use last_n_events/time_period vs. automatic behavior, clarifies default values and purposes for strategy, focus_areas, max_context_tokens, include_summary, severity_filter, and resource_filter. This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool performs 'adaptive event analysis for a namespace with automatic volume management,' specifying both the action (analysis) and resource (namespace events). It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing adaptive behavior and automatic volume management, unlike simpler event listing tools in the sibling list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
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: 'When no constraints specified, automatically: estimates volume, applies smart time windows, prioritizes errors/warnings, samples within token limits.' This explains the adaptive behavior scenario. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by explaining the return format ('Dict[str, str]: Pod names as keys, logs as values'), auto-detection behavior, and parameter interaction rules (e.g., 'since_seconds overrides tail_lines'). It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or destructive potential, but provides substantial 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement, followed by auto-detection context, then organized parameter explanations, and finally return format. Every sentence serves a specific purpose with zero wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, no annotations, but with output schema), the description is remarkably complete. It covers purpose, operational context, detailed parameter semantics, and return format. The output schema existence means the description doesn't need to explain return value structure further.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage for 8 parameters, the description fully compensates by providing detailed explanations for each parameter including defaults, overrides, requirements, and formatting expectations. The Args section adds significant value beyond what the bare schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Retrieve etcd pod logs'), target resource ('from Kubernetes/OpenShift'), and scope ('with flexible time and line filtering'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'analyze_pod_logs_hybrid' or 'smart_summarize_pod_logs' by focusing specifically on etcd pods with cluster auto-detection.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context about when to use this tool ('Retrieve etcd pod logs from Kubernetes/OpenShift') and mentions auto-detection of cluster type. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools for different logging scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![lumino-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/geored/lumino-mcp-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/geored/lumino-mcp-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![lumino-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/geored/lumino-mcp-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/geored/lumino-mcp-server)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/geored/lumino-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server