get_config

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behaviors: secret-sourced values shown as references, credential-looking keys redacted, and findings (secrets in env, missing probes, JVM heap vs limit). This goes beyond a simple 'get' and explains what the agent can expect, including security handling.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the main purpose ('Resolved configuration of a workload') and then enumerates the content categories. It is efficient with no fluff, though the list is long and somewhat packed. Still, it's well-structured for scanning.

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 there's no output schema, the description explains what the result contains (env, ConfigMap previews, probes, etc.) and how sensitive data is handled. It covers the core information an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly. It doesn't mention potential errors or access requirements, but for a config retrieval tool this is reasonably 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%, with both parameters clearly described in the schema (workload name and namespace). The tool description adds no additional semantics beyond listing config categories; it doesn't clarify parameter usage beyond what's already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 returns the resolved configuration of a workload, listing specific components (env, ConfigMap previews, probes, resources, mounts, security context, findings). This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from more narrow siblings like get_jvm_config or get_proxy_config_summary.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'see list_namespaces' for the namespace parameter, but doesn't indicate when to choose get_config over get_service_overview or get_jvm_config. The description implies it's for full config inspection, but doesn't state exclusions or alternatives.

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