k8s_describe_service

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the output includes 'endpoints', which adds some behavioral context beyond a basic read. However, it doesn't disclose critical traits like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, potential rate limits, or error conditions. The description is minimal and leaves significant behavioral aspects unspecified.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get full description of a service') and adds a useful detail ('including endpoints'). There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 complexity (a read operation in Kubernetes with 2 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It specifies the resource and output detail, but lacks information on permissions, error handling, or output format. For a tool in a rich sibling set with many alternatives, more context would be beneficial, but it meets the basic threshold.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear parameter descriptions ('Service name' and 'Namespace'). The tool description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 verb ('Get full description') and resource ('of a service'), and specifies what information is included ('including endpoints'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'k8s_get_service' by emphasizing a more detailed description rather than basic retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'k8s_describe_pod' or 'k8s_describe_deployment' beyond the resource type.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'k8s_get_service' (which likely returns less detail) or other 'describe' tools for different resources. It lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, and doesn't mention prerequisites such as cluster access or namespace context.

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