k8s_get_deployment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'gets' information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify what 'detailed information' includes, whether it requires specific permissions, or how errors are handled. This leaves significant gaps for a tool interacting with Kubernetes deployments.

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 gets straight to the point without any unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no space on redundant information.

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 Kubernetes tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' entails, how results are formatted, or potential error conditions. Given the complexity of Kubernetes deployments and the lack of structured metadata, more context is needed for effective use.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('name' and 'namespace') clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaningful context beyond what the schema already provides, such as explaining parameter interactions or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('detailed information about a deployment'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't specifically differentiate from sibling tools like 'k8s_describe_deployment' or 'k8s_list_deployments', which prevents a perfect score.

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_describe_deployment' or 'k8s_list_deployments'. It lacks any mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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