k8s_metrics

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. While it mentions what metrics are retrieved (CPU/Memory), it lacks critical information such as whether this requires specific permissions, how metrics are formatted or aggregated, if there are rate limits, or what the response structure looks like. For a tool that likely interacts with a Kubernetes metrics API, this is a significant gap.

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 clear main purpose followed by bullet points for actions. It avoids unnecessary words, though the bullet points could be more integrated into a single sentence. Every sentence earns its place by specifying the resource types and actions.

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 complexity of Kubernetes metrics retrieval, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, authentication needs, or how metrics are scoped (e.g., current vs historical). For a tool with 4 parameters and likely nuanced behavior, this is inadequate.

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 four parameters with their types and descriptions. The description adds minimal value by listing the two action options, but doesn't provide additional context like how namespace/podName interact for pod metrics or what happens when optional parameters are omitted. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 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 resource metrics (CPU/Memory)' with specific actions for pods and nodes. It uses a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('Kubernetes resource metrics'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like k8s_pods or k8s_nodes which might also retrieve information about those 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 provides implied usage guidance by listing two specific actions (get_pod_metrics and get_node_metrics), suggesting when to use each based on the resource type. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like k8s_pods for non-metric information, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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