get_resource

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already communicates the read-only safety profile, and the description is consistent with that. The description adds little beyond 'Get any Kubernetes resource object'; it does not disclose error behavior, cluster handling, or optional namespace semantics, but for a simple getter this is a moderate gap.

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 focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the verb and object and keeps the essential parameter mention in order, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 output schema and read-only annotation reduce the need to describe return values or safety, but the description still relies heavily on Kubernetes domain knowledge. It does not explain the required cluster parameter, the optional namespace, or how to discover valid apiVersion/kind combinations, so a less experienced agent could struggle to invoke it correctly.

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 carries the burden of explaining parameters. It mentions apiVersion, kind, and name, but omits cluster and namespace entirely, and does not clarify apiVersion formats or namespace default null behavior. This partial coverage is not enough to compensate for the absent schema descriptions.

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 action ('Get') and the broad resource ('any Kubernetes resource object'), and identifies the key locators: apiVersion, kind, and name. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_configmap and describe_pod because it is explicitly generic, though it does not name those alternatives.

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 when to use it: when you need a specific Kubernetes object by apiVersion, kind, and name. It gives no explicit guidance on when not to use it or when to prefer a sibling like list_resources or describe_pod, so the usage context is present but not fully developed.

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