describe_resource

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It accurately states the tool runs kubectl describe and returns raw text with the event tail, which implies a read-only operation. It does not explicitly state whether it is non-mutating, what permissions are needed, or that output can be verbose.

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 well-structured sentence that front-loads the command and resource, then explains the output format and concrete use cases. There is no filler or redundant repetition of the tool name or schema.

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 simple read-only describe tool with an output schema present, the description covers the command, resource scope, output shape, and typical use cases. It could be slightly more complete with an explicit read-only or permission note, but the core information needed to invoke it correctly is present.

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 0%, and while the parameter names are self-explanatory, the description only partially compensates by listing example kind values ('pod, deployment, replicaset, service') and implying any resource can be used. The name and namespace parameters are left to inference from their names and the schema default.

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 uses a specific verb ('Run kubectl describe'), a clear resource target ('any resource'), and explicitly states the return value ('raw text, including its event tail'). It also differentiates itself from get_events by mentioning failure modes that get_events cannot capture.

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?

It provides clear usage context by naming scheduling failures, probe failures, and admission errors, and explicitly references get_events as an alternative with a limitation. It does not, however, exhaustively list when not to use the tool or compare with all other siblings.

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