k8s_deployments

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 and does so effectively. It clearly identifies destructive actions (scale, restart) and their safety requirements (confirm=true or dryRun=true), mentions the 'rolling restart' behavior, and distinguishes between read-only (list, get, get_status, get_metrics) and mutating operations. It doesn't cover rate limits or authentication needs, 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 perfectly structured and concise: a clear purpose statement followed by a bulleted list of actions with brief, action-specific notes. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant information. The front-loaded structure immediately communicates the tool's scope.

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 multi-action tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides excellent coverage of operations, parameter dependencies, and safety requirements. The main gap is the lack of output format information (what gets returned for each action), but given the complexity and absence of output schema, this is a minor omission in an otherwise comprehensive description.

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 thoroughly. The description adds some value by clarifying parameter dependencies (e.g., 'name required for most actions except list', 'replicas required for scale action'), but doesn't provide significant additional semantic meaning beyond what's in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline expectation.

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 'Manage Kubernetes deployments' and enumerates six specific actions (list, get, scale, restart, get_status, get_metrics), providing a comprehensive verb+resource breakdown. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like k8s_pods or k8s_services by focusing specifically on deployments.

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 usage context by specifying which actions require certain parameters (e.g., 'name required for most actions except list') and when confirm/dryRun are needed for destructive actions. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like k8s_pods for pod-level operations or provide exclusion criteria.

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