Resource Usage Check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool compares usage against limits and checks for violations, but doesn't describe key behaviors: whether it requires specific permissions (e.g., cluster admin), how it handles missing limits, what constitutes a 'threshold violation' (e.g., percentage-based), or the output format (e.g., list of violations). For a monitoring tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every element ('compares pod CPU/Memory usage against limits to check for threshold violations') earns its place by specifying the action, resource, and goal, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 (monitoring with potential permission needs), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what the output contains (e.g., violation details). For a tool that interacts with cluster resources, more context is needed to ensure safe and effective use.

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 clear descriptions for both parameters ('namespace' and 'podName'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain how 'podName' interacts with the comparison logic or specify default behaviors when 'podName' is empty. Baseline 3 is appropriate since 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Compares pod CPU/Memory usage against limits to check for threshold violations.' It specifies the verb ('compares'), resource ('pod CPU/Memory usage'), and objective ('check for threshold violations'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'diagnose-pod' or 'check-events', which might have overlapping monitoring functions.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing access to Kubernetes metrics, or compare it to siblings like 'diagnose-pod' (which might offer broader diagnostics) or 'check-events' (which might focus on event logs). Usage is implied by the purpose but lacks explicit context or exclusions.

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