Summarize warning events

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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, and the schema covers detailLevel/maxItems caps. The description adds real behavior (Warning-only filter, grouping by reason, count ordering) but says nothing about the response budget interaction, truncation behavior, or that results are aggregated rather than complete.

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 sentence that front-loads the scope, the aggregation behavior, and the contrast with the naive alternative. No filler.

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 and full parameter documentation, the description only needs to convey scope and aggregation semantics, which it does. Minor gap: it doesn't clarify how allNamespaces interacts with the summary grouping when no namespace is given.

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 every parameter is already documented, including the detailLevel presets and maxItems override. The description adds no syntax or defaulting information beyond what the schema states, so 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?

States a specific verb (Summarize) and resource (Warning events) plus the output shape: grouped by reason, ordered by count. It implicitly separates itself from raw event listing ('instead of scrolling raw kubectl get events') but never names the actual sibling (e.g. kube_get) that does the raw read.

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 clause 'instead of scrolling raw kubectl get events' gives a clear selection rule against the raw-listing approach. It stops short of naming the sibling tool or stating when NOT to use it (e.g. when you need event timestamps or raw messages, use another tool).

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