k8s_events

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

The description explicitly states it is read-only, idempotent, and never mutates the cluster. It also notes requires read access and raises on kubectl failure. With no annotations provided, the description fully covers behavioral transparency.

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 concise and well-structured. It starts with the main purpose, then provides key traits, use cases, and a clear argument list. Every sentence adds value; no redundancy.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters (all optional), 100% schema coverage, and an output schema, the description provides sufficient guidance to use the tool effectively. It covers purpose, behavior, error conditions, and parameter usage.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context: namespace ('omit for cluster-wide'), kind ('capitalized as K8s reports it'), name ('use with kind'), since (format and default), context ('omit to use current context'). This enriches understanding beyond the schema.

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 lists recent K8s events, most recent first. It specifies it is read-only and lists events only, effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like k8s_get or k8s_describe. The purpose is specific and actionable.

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 provides clear use cases (scheduling failures, image pull problems, etc.) and explains that events can be filtered by namespace and involved object. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool versus alternatives, which would strengthen guidance further.

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