k8s_get_node

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. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify what 'detailed information' includes, whether authentication is required, potential rate limits, or error conditions. For a Kubernetes tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 immediately conveys the core purpose. There's no wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration, making it optimally concise while still being informative.

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 insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' includes, how the output is structured, or provide any context about Kubernetes-specific considerations. Given the complexity of Kubernetes operations and the lack of structured metadata, more descriptive content would be helpful.

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 single parameter 'name' clearly documented as 'Node name'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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') and resource ('detailed information about a specific node'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'k8s_describe_node' or 'k8s_list_nodes', which appear to serve similar purposes in the Kubernetes context.

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 siblings like 'k8s_describe_node' (which might provide more verbose output) and 'k8s_list_nodes' (which lists multiple nodes), the agent receives no help in selecting the appropriate tool for different scenarios.

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