k8s_get_configmap

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves information ('Get'), implying it's a read-only operation, but doesn't confirm this or address other behavioral aspects like permissions required, error handling (e.g., if ConfigMap doesn't exist), or rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks crucial operational context for a Kubernetes tool.

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 extremely concise—a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence ('Get ConfigMap details and data') contributes essential information, making it efficient and easy to parse. No structural issues or redundancy are present.

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 insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'details and data' includes (e.g., metadata, key-value pairs), potential side effects, or return format, leaving gaps for an AI agent to understand the tool's full behavior. For a read operation in a critical system like Kubernetes, more context is needed.

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 documentation for both parameters ('name' and 'namespace'). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Since schema coverage is high, 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 action ('Get') and resource ('ConfigMap details and data'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'k8s_list_configmaps' (which lists multiple) and 'k8s_create_configmap' (which creates), though it doesn't explicitly mention these distinctions. The description is specific but could be more precise about what 'details' includes.

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. It doesn't mention when to choose 'k8s_get_configmap' over 'k8s_list_configmaps' (for listing all) or 'k8s_describe_pod' (for different resource types), nor does it specify prerequisites like needing a specific namespace or context. Usage is implied by the name but not explicitly stated.

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