check_pod_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so safety is covered. The description adds behavioral depth by listing return values (desired vs ready replicas, restart count, pod phase) and providing an interpretation rule for CrashLoopBackOff with high restarts. This is valuable context beyond the annotations, though it doesn't mention failure modes or edge cases.

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?

Three sentences: the first states purpose, the second lists return fields, the third explains interpretation and usage. Every sentence contributes new information and there is no redundant or filler text.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with one well-documented parameter and helpful annotations, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, what it returns, how to interpret a key signal, and how to use it during an incident alongside another tool. No output schema exists, but the description compensates by listing return fields.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already has 100% coverage with a clear description for the single 'service' parameter, including an example. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level guidance, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Checks the current Kubernetes pod/container status for a service.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_service_metrics (metrics) and get_service_logs (logs) by focusing on pod status and replica counts.

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?

It provides actionable usage context: 'Use this alongside get_service_metrics to assess service health during an incident.' This names a complementary tool and a scenario. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast with get_service_logs or get_recent_deployments, which would make it a 5.

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