get_endpoints

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the kind of information returned (matching pods, ready endpoints, port mismatches) but does not state whether it is read-only, any potential limitations (e.g., no pagination, large result sets), or any side effects. The description is minimal and leaves the agent without a clear safety profile.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and uses concise Kubernetes terminology. It is efficient and clear, though it could benefit from a structured format for the different pieces of information.

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?

For a simple diagnostic tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough to understand what the tool returns (matching pods, ready endpoints, port mismatches). However, it lacks explicit usage guidance and does not mention any failure modes or interpretation notes, making it adequate but not fully comprehensive for an agent.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add any extra meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides (service and namespace descriptions are already explicit). It correctly relies on the schema for 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 states a specific action (Service -> EndpointSlice) and lists the exact data it provides (matching pods, ready endpoints, targetPort vs containerPort mismatches). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like get_endpoint_metrics (metrics) and get_pod_status (pod status) by focusing on endpoint slice health and selector matching.

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 implies usage for diagnosing selector mismatches ("Catches the classic 'selector matches nothing'") but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like diagnose_service or get_service_overview. It gives a clear context hint but lacks exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools.

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