kubectl_nodes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'List' signals a read-only, non-destructive operation and the description discloses which node attributes come back, but it says nothing about cluster connectivity, credentials, failure modes, or pagination/scale limits.

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 with zero filler: verb, resource, scope, then value-add attributes. Nothing is wasted, though it is arguably a touch terse for a tool with no annotations to lean on.

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 return values need not be explained, and the single required parameter is fully covered by the schema. The description is complete enough for a simple read-only list tool; the only gap is behavioral context that annotations would normally supply.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents 'cluster' as the inventory cluster name. The description adds no extra meaning about that parameter, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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?

Specific verb ('List') plus resource ('nodes') and scope ('in a Kubernetes cluster'), with the returned attributes (readiness, roles, capacity) enumerated. It is clearly separable from kubectl_get_pods and proxmox_nodes, though it never names a sibling to contrast against.

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 listing intent implies when it is useful, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives such as kubectl_describe or kubectl_events for deeper per-node detail. Usage is only implied by the resource name.

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