analyze_network_policy

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state that the operation is read-only, whether it needs cluster-wide or namespace-scoped RBAC to read NetworkPolicy objects, or what the analysis result looks like (list of policies vs. a verdict on allowed/denied traffic).

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; no repetition of the name or schema. Well sized for a two-parameter read tool.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should at least hint at the shape of the analysis (which policies matched, which rules restrict traffic). It also omits any note about permissions or that a missing pod/namespace yields an error, leaving an agent under-informed about results for a tool whose value is entirely in its output.

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% with only two simple parameters, so the schema already conveys pod_name and namespace meaning including the namespace default. The description adds nothing beyond that, which is the expected baseline here.

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?

States a specific verb ('analyze') and a specific resource ('NetworkPolicies apply to a pod') plus the second outcome ('detect traffic restrictions'). No sibling tool touches network policy, so an agent can route to this without ambiguity.

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 purpose implies when it is useful (pod connectivity or traffic-blocking issues), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. The agent must infer that this pairs with check_service_endpoints or trace_service_to_pods for connectivity debugging.

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