k8s_rollout_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but provides no information about what 'status' includes (e.g., progress indicators, error states, completion criteria), whether it's a blocking or non-blocking operation, or what happens if the deployment doesn't exist. For a status-checking tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 communicates the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward status-checking tool and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 tool's moderate complexity (checking rollout status in a Kubernetes environment), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but leaves gaps. It identifies the tool's purpose but doesn't explain what constitutes 'status' or what format the information returns. For a tool that likely provides detailed rollout progress information, more context about the nature of the status check 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 description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, which has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both 'name' and 'namespace' parameters. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema fully documents the parameters, and the description doesn't need to repeat that information. However, it also doesn't provide additional context about parameter usage or constraints.

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 the status') and resource ('deployment rollout'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'k8s_describe_deployment' or 'k8s_get_deployment' by focusing specifically on rollout status rather than general deployment information. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'k8s_rollout_history' or 'k8s_rollout_undo', which are closely related rollout operations.

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 multiple sibling tools like 'k8s_describe_deployment', 'k8s_get_deployment', and 'k8s_rollout_history', there's no indication of when this specific rollout status check is preferred over those other deployment-related tools. The description is purely functional without contextual usage information.

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