who_shelled_into_pod

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 retrieving audit logs but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this requires special permissions, how results are formatted, if it's a read-only operation, potential rate limits, or error conditions. For a tool with 7 parameters and no annotations, 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 core functionality and appropriately sized for what it communicates, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 (7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., log format, user details), how results are ordered, or any prerequisites for accessing audit logs. For a tool that likely returns structured security data, more context about the return values and operational constraints is needed.

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 doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema, which has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all 7 parameters. Since the schema fully documents parameters like 'name', 'namespace', 'from_time', etc., the description meets the baseline of 3 by not needing to compensate for schema gaps, but it doesn't provide additional context about how parameters interact or typical usage patterns.

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: 'Get k8s audit logs with information about users who shelled into a pod.' It specifies the action ('Get'), resource ('k8s audit logs'), and specific focus ('users who shelled into a pod'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_k8s_resource_details' or 'list_k8s_resources' which might also retrieve Kubernetes data, preventing a perfect score.

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. With many sibling tools related to Kubernetes and auditing (e.g., 'get_k8s_resource_details', 'list_k8s_resources', 'list_http_requests'), there's no indication of when this specific audit log query is appropriate or what distinguishes it from other logging or resource tools.

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