Diagnose a pod

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds substantive behavior by disclosing that it aggregates multiple signals into one call and enumerating what evidence categories it surfaces (CrashLoopBackOff, ImagePullBackOff, OOMKilled, Unschedulable, restarts). It stops short of stating limits, such as what it does with a healthy pod or whether the pod must already exist in the given context.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, and the value proposition ('in one call') is front-loaded before the return contents. The parenthetical evidence list is dense rather than padded.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no prose explanation, and annotations cover safety; the description still adds the failure-mode scope an agent needs to judge applicability. All three parameters are fully documented in the schema, so nothing required to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% with all three fields documented, including the namespace default, so the schema already carries semantics. The description adds nothing about how pod name relates to namespace or context, which is the correct baseline-3 position when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource plus the condition it targets ('Diagnose why a pod is unhealthy'), which is clearly distinct from raw retrieval tools like kube_get or kube_logs. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the nearby kube_pod_failure_summary sibling, leaving an agent to guess which diagnostic entry point to pick.

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 phrase 'in one call' implies this should be preferred over manually chaining get/logs/events, which is useful implied guidance. But there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not statement and no sibling is named as an alternative or complement.

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