k8s_audit

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 lists actions like 'clear_session' and 'set_dry_run', implying mutation capabilities, but doesn't detail permissions, side effects, or response formats. For a tool with multiple actions including destructive ones (e.g., clear_session), 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.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is efficiently structured with a brief purpose statement followed by a bulleted list of actions, making it easy to scan. Every sentence earns its place by clarifying the tool's scope. Minor improvement could be made by front-loading more critical information, but it's well-organized.

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 with 6 actions including mutations (e.g., clear_session, configure), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, return values, and error handling, which are crucial for safe and effective use in a Kubernetes audit context.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds value by mapping parameters to actions (e.g., 'enabled' for set_dry_run, 'requireConfirmation' for configure), but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema specifies. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose as managing audit logging and safety controls with specific actions listed. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like k8s_configmaps or k8s_pods by focusing on audit functionality rather than Kubernetes resource management. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, keeping it from a perfect score.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage through the action list (e.g., 'get_status' for checking status, 'configure' for updating settings), but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like k8s_events for event monitoring or general context for audit needs. No 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.