k8s_get_all

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'Get all common resources' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what 'common resources' entails (e.g., which Kubernetes resource types). This leaves critical operational details unspecified for a tool in a complex system like Kubernetes.

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, straightforward sentence that efficiently conveys the core action. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and avoids unnecessary details. However, it could be more structured by specifying what 'common resources' includes, but as-is, it's appropriately concise without waste.

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 of Kubernetes operations and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'common resources' means, the return format, error handling, or prerequisites. For a tool with no structured safety or output information, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to operate effectively.

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 the 'namespace' parameter clearly documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, as it doesn't explain parameter usage, constraints, or defaults. However, with high schema coverage and only one parameter, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately handles parameter semantics.

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 the action ('Get all') and target ('common resources in a namespace'), which clarifies the tool's purpose. However, it's vague about what constitutes 'common resources' and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like k8s_list_pods or k8s_list_deployments, which also retrieve resources. This leaves ambiguity about scope and uniqueness.

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. With many sibling tools for listing specific resource types (e.g., k8s_list_pods, k8s_list_services), it fails to specify if this is for bulk retrieval or a specific subset, offering no context for selection. Usage is implied only by the action, not by explicit instructions.

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