get_etcd_logs

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.