K8s Doctor MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool queries and analyzes events, implying read-only behavior, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, output format, or error handling. For a query tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 and front-loaded in a single sentence, efficiently stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary details. It earns its place by covering key actions and targets, though it could be slightly more structured to separate querying from analysis aspects.

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's complexity (querying and analyzing events), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'analyzes' entails, the return format, or how results are presented. For a tool with behavioral and output uncertainties, more context is needed to be fully helpful.

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 description mentions querying events for 'specific resources or namespaces,' which aligns with the 'namespace' and 'resourceName' parameters, and analyzing 'Warning events,' which relates to 'showNormal.' However, with 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all parameters well. The description adds some context (e.g., focus on Warning events) but doesn't provide significant extra meaning beyond the schema.

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's purpose: 'Queries events for specific resources or namespaces and analyzes Warning events.' This specifies both the action (queries and analyzes) and the target (events), with a focus on Warning events. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'analyze-logs' or 'debug-crashloop', which might also involve event analysis.

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 minimal guidance on when to use this tool. It mentions querying events for resources or namespaces and analyzing Warning events, but doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or alternatives among siblings. For example, no comparison to 'analyze-logs' or 'debug-crashloop' is given, leaving usage context vague.

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