k8s_get_secret

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 mentions that values are base64 encoded and hints at sensitivity with 'be careful' in the schema, but fails to detail critical aspects like authentication requirements, error handling (e.g., if secret doesn't exist), rate limits, or whether it's a read-only operation. This leaves significant gaps for safe and effective use.

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 secret metadata') and adds a key detail ('values are base64 encoded'). There is no wasted language, and it's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient for a tool that interacts with sensitive Kubernetes secrets. It doesn't cover behavioral traits like safety, permissions, or output format, leaving the agent without critical context for proper invocation. This is a significant gap for a tool with potential security implications.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the parameters (name, namespace, decode). The description adds minimal value by noting base64 encoding, which relates to the decode parameter, but doesn't provide additional context beyond what's in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline of 3 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 ('secret metadata'), and specifies that values are base64 encoded. It distinguishes from siblings like k8s_list_secrets by focusing on retrieving a specific secret rather than listing. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from k8s_get_resource_yaml or other get operations, keeping it at 4 instead of 5.

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 siblings like k8s_list_secrets for listing or k8s_get_resource_yaml for YAML output, nor does it specify prerequisites such as needing a valid Kubernetes context. Usage is implied by the name and description alone.

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