get_configmap

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'Read' is consistent with that. The extra warning to 'Review returned data for sensitive values' adds behavioral context beyond the annotations, telling the agent that output may contain sensitive content.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler, with the core action front-loaded and the usage warning kept separate. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple, has an output schema, and the description covers purpose plus a meaningful sensitivity caveat. It does not mention error conditions or how cluster/namespace are resolved, but for this lightweight read operation the description is adequate.

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 the description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the bare names 'cluster', 'namespace', and 'name'. The parameter names are fairly obvious, but the description does not help disambiguate expected values or format.

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 states a specific verb ('Read'), a specific resource ('ConfigMap'), and a clear scope ('including its data'). This clearly distinguishes it from generic tools like get_resource and from list_* sibling tools.

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 the tool is for reading ConfigMaps when you need their data, but it never explicitly names alternatives or says when not to use it. There is no mention of get_resource or list_secrets as alternatives, so usage guidance is only implicit.

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