k8s_events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description mentions actions but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what the output format looks like. For a Kubernetes tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the main purpose. The bullet-point structure for actions is efficient and easy to scan. However, the first sentence could be more specific (e.g., 'Retrieve and filter Kubernetes cluster events'), and some redundancy exists between the description and schema (e.g., action explanations). Overall, it's concise with minimal waste.

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 (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral aspects like safety, permissions, and output format, which are crucial for a Kubernetes events tool. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should compensate more by explaining return values or operational constraints, but it doesn't.

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 six parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it lists the three action values and hints at their purposes (e.g., 'get_resource: Get events for a specific resource'), but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or examples. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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: 'Get Kubernetes cluster events' with three specific actions. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Kubernetes cluster events'), but doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like k8s_audit or k8s_metrics, which might also retrieve cluster information. The description is clear about what the tool does but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 implied usage guidance by listing three actions with brief explanations (e.g., 'list: Get cluster events with optional filtering'). However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like k8s_audit (which might handle audit logs) or provide clear exclusions. The guidance is helpful but not comprehensive about tool selection.

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