describe_pod

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the returned content (DNS policy, network config, containers, conditions), which tells the agent this is a read that produces a large structured payload. It does not mention behavior on a missing pod, whether the read requires permissions, or how verbose the output is.

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 short phrase, front-loaded with the key scope ('Full pod description') and then the notable included sections. It is efficient, though the fragmentary noun-phrase form lacks an explicit verb.

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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately conveys what comes back. It leaves gaps around error behavior and output size, which matter for a 'full description' call that can return a large object.

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 both 'name' and 'namespace' documented including the default value, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no further meaning about scoping, name format, or cross-namespace lookup, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 phrase 'Full pod description' names a specific resource and signals a detailed single-object read, which is distinguishable from list_pods and get_pod_logs in the sibling set. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with those siblings, but the verb+resource intent is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this instead of list_pods, get_pod_logs, or describe_deployment, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. An agent must infer the selection criteria from the sibling names alone.

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