CrashLoopBackOff Diagnostics

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 mentions what the tool examines (exit codes, logs, events) but doesn't describe the output format, whether it's read-only or destructive, permission requirements, rate limits, or error handling. For a diagnostic tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the main action and resource, making it easy to understand quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes meaning.

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 complexity of a diagnostic tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., a report, status codes, recommendations), how to interpret results, or any behavioral aspects like safety or side effects. For a tool that analyzes crash states, more context is needed to use it effectively.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters (namespace, podName, containerName) with basic descriptions. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or constraints. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation.

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: 'Analyzes pods in CrashLoop state by examining exit codes, logs, and events to find the root cause.' It specifies the verb ('analyzes'), resource ('pods in CrashLoop state'), and scope of analysis. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'diagnose-pod' or 'full-diagnosis', which might have overlapping functionality.

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 sibling tools like 'diagnose-pod' or 'full-diagnosis', nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The context is implied (pods in CrashLoop state), but there's no explicit usage guidance.

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