spawn_ephemeral_debug_container

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavior disclosure. It explicitly warns that the operation mutates the live pod spec and that the ephemeral container cannot be removed without restarting the pod. It also explains the sleep-for-duration behavior and the target_container namespace behavior, giving a complete behavioral picture.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core action comes first, followed by usage rationale, follow-up guidance, and the critical side-effect warning. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 mutating tool with no annotations, the description covers the essential operational context: what it does, why you'd use it, how long it lives, how to interact with it afterward, and the irreversible side effect. The mention of the 'returned container name' also bridges to the output schema, making the tool callable end-to-end.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds real meaning to duration_seconds (container sleeps for that long), target_container (shares its process namespace), and image (provides tools the app image lacks). Less critical parameters like pod, namespace, and initial_command are self-explanatory from their names/defaults.

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-resource pair ('Attach an ephemeral debug container to a running pod') and names the mechanism ('kubectl debug'). It gives a concrete motivating example (distroless/minimal image lacking tools) and is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like exec_in_pod, which runs in an existing container.

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 clearly states when to use it ('e.g. to get a shell with tools a distroless/minimal app image lacks') and tells the agent to follow up with exec_in_pod using the returned container name. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the use case and warning about mutating the pod imply a selective, cautious trigger.

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