k8s_configmaps

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 specifies that update and delete actions require confirm=true or dryRun=true, indicating safety mechanisms for destructive operations. However, it doesn't cover other important aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling.

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 introductory phrase followed by a bulleted list of actions with specific constraints. Every sentence earns its place, and the information is front-loaded with the most critical details about destructive action requirements.

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 complex tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It covers the main actions and safety constraints but lacks information about return values, error conditions, authentication requirements, and how it differs from sibling tools managing other Kubernetes resources.

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 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning that name is 'required for most actions except list' and data is 'required for create/update', but these are already implied in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does 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 manages Kubernetes ConfigMaps with specific actions (list, get, create, update, delete), providing a verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like k8s_secrets or k8s_deployments, which likely manage different Kubernetes resources.

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 parameter but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like k8s_secrets or k8s_deployments. It mentions prerequisites for update/delete actions (confirm=true or dryRun=true), which offers some contextual guidance but not comprehensive sibling differentiation.

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