k8s_secrets

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: metadata-only retrieval for 'get', confirmation requirements for destructive actions (update/delete), and dry-run capabilities. It doesn't cover rate limits, authentication needs, or error behaviors, 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 efficiently structured with a clear headline followed by bullet points for each action. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential operational information without redundancy. The formatting makes it easy to scan and understand.

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 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides substantial context about actions and their requirements. It covers the main use cases and safety mechanisms (confirm/dryRun) but doesn't explain return values or error conditions, which would be helpful given the absence of output schema.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds some value by clarifying parameter usage in context (e.g., 'name required for most actions except list', 'data required for create/update'), but doesn't significantly expand beyond what the schema already documents.

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 Secrets' with specific actions listed (list, get, create, update, delete). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing specifically on Secrets rather than other Kubernetes resources like configmaps, deployments, or pods.

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 listing specific actions and their purposes, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like k8s_configmaps or other sibling tools. It does differentiate actions within the tool (e.g., list vs get) but lacks cross-tool comparison guidance.

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