get_pod_status

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does describe the return content comprehensively (phases, reasons, counts, exit codes, unschedulable conditions) and explains the targeting logic. However, it does not state that the operation is read-only, mention permission requirements, or describe error/edge-case behavior (e.g., unknown pod). This leaves some ambiguity for an agent.

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 zero filler. The first sentence lists the returned data, front-loading the core value; the second gives concise targeting instructions. Every word earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values. It lists the key data fields (phases, states, reasons, counts, exit codes, unschedulable conditions) which gives an agent a solid expectation. It does not specify the exact structure (e.g., whether containers are nested, how multiple pods are presented), but for a status tool this is adequate. Minor gaps exist but are not critical.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the relationship between parameters: 'Give a service, a pod, or neither for the whole namespace' makes it explicit that service and pod are mutually exclusive alternatives, and that omitting both targets the entire namespace. This goes beyond the individual parameter descriptions in the schema.

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 the exact resource (pod status) and the specific data returned: pod phases, container states, waiting/terminated reasons, restart counts, exit codes, unschedulable conditions. It also explains the targeting options (service, pod, or whole namespace), making it distinct from the many sibling tools focused on metrics, logs, or configuration.

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 gives clear usage context: 'Give a service, a pod, or neither for the whole namespace.' This explains how to scope the query but does not mention when to use this tool over alternatives like get_resource_pressure or get_events, nor any exclusions. No explicit routing or comparison to siblings.

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