kubectl_describe

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return content (spec/status highlights plus recent events), which is genuine behavioral value, but says nothing about read-only nature, required permissions, or whether events retrieval is bounded/paginated.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that identifies the resource and its output with zero filler. Nothing is wasted and the key information comes first.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values, and all parameters are covered by the schema. What remains is the absence of annotation coverage for read-only/permission context, but for a describe-style inspection tool the definition is essentially complete.

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 all three parameters (cluster, namespace, pod) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional syntax, format, or defaulting guidance beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 correct.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Describe a pod") and even previews the content it returns (spec/status highlights + recent events), so the agent knows this is a detail-oriented inspection tool rather than a listing tool. It never names or distinguishes itself from siblings like kubectl_get_pods or kubectl_events, whose scope partially overlaps with the events it mentions.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer you call this to inspect a single pod, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing (e.g., use kubectl_get_pods for listing, kubectl_logs for logs). Adequate but leaves selection to inference.

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