get_eks_metrics

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 mentions the equivalent kubectl command for api_server, but does not address authentication requirements, error scenarios, rate limits, or idempotence. The read-only nature is implied but not confirmed, and no safety information is provided.

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 concise at three sentences and starts with the main action. However, it includes a note about CloudWatch being reserved for future implementation, which is somewhat irrelevant. The structure is adequate but could be more organized by front-loading key usage constraints.

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 has 10 parameters and an output schema, the description is extremely sparse. It does not explain how to connect to a cluster, specify metrics, or interpret results. The sibling tool is not referenced. For a tool with this complexity, the description fails to provide necessary context for correct usage.

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 input schema has 10 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention any parameter, its purpose, or allowed values. For example, the 'source' parameter defaults to 'api_server', but the description only mentions it in passing. This leaves agents completely uninformed about parameter semantics.

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 tool fetches EKS metrics from api_server or cloudwatch, with the api_server source explained. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'list_api_server_metric_names', which likely serves a complementary purpose. The purpose is clear but lacks explicit distinction.

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, such as the sibling tool 'list_api_server_metric_names'. It only notes that CloudWatch is reserved for future use, implying current limitation. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions are given.

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