k8s_describe_node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't disclose behavioral aspects like required permissions, rate limits, error conditions, or whether it returns structured data versus raw output. For a Kubernetes tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant 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?

Single sentence efficiently conveys purpose and scope. No wasted words, front-loaded with the main action. Every element ('full description', 'including conditions, capacity, and allocatable resources') adds value.

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 single-parameter read operation with 100% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it should ideally provide more behavioral context about what 'full description' means in practice (structured vs unstructured, typical response format). The description meets basic requirements but leaves gaps.

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 100% with the single parameter 'name' clearly documented as 'Node name'. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, but doesn't need to since schema coverage is complete. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 full description') and resource ('of a node'), specifying what information is included ('conditions, capacity, and allocatable resources'). It distinguishes from simpler 'get' operations by emphasizing 'full description', but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling 'k8s_get_node' which might provide less detail.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'k8s_get_node' or 'k8s_list_nodes'. The description implies it provides more detailed information than basic get operations, but doesn't explicitly state this or provide usage context or prerequisites.

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