get_k8s_node

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint: true, and the description adds that the tool returns specific fields (name, state, version, IPs), which is useful. However, it does not disclose additional behavioral aspects like response pagination or error conditions, but given the read-only nature, this suffices.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and key output details. No filler or redundant information, earning full marks.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explicitly lists return fields, covering the main expected data. It also implies required parameters via the resource hierarchy, though it could mention the three identifiers. Adequate for a simple read operation.

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 coverage is 100%, with all parameters clearly described. The description adds no extra parameter detail beyond the schema but mentions output fields, which helps interpret the return, though not parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: getting details of a specific worker node in a Kubernetes node pool, including name, state, version, and IPs. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying 'worker node' rather than cluster or nodepool.

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 its use case (fetching node details) but does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools like get_k8s_cluster or list_k8s_nodepool_nodes. It provides no instructions on when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer based on resource type.

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