get_resource_pressure

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention that CFS throttling is reported 'when known' and that the result includes 'findings', which adds some transparency about data availability. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, whether any permissions are required, or what happens when no matching pod/service is found. It is partially transparent but leaves significant gaps.

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 concise line that front-loads the core purpose and lists the key data points without any fluff. Every word contributes to understanding what the tool returns, and it is appropriately sized for a tool with four well-documented parameters.

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?

Despite having four parameters and no output schema, the description does not explain how to select the target (pod vs service) or that a namespace is required (as noted in the schema). It also does not describe the response format beyond listing metrics. For an agent to call this tool correctly, it needs to know that it must specify either pod or service and that namespace is mandatory. These omissions make the description incomplete for effective use.

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 schema already documents each parameter. The description does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides; it merely lists the metric categories. It does not clarify the relationship between pod and service parameters (e.g., mutual exclusivity) or the required namespace. 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 identifies the tool as reporting CPU/memory usage vs requests/limits per container, along with CFS throttling, OOM kills, restarts, and findings. It is specific to resource pressure and distinguishes itself from siblings like get_node_pressure (node-level) and query_metrics (generic metrics). However, it lacks an explicit verb, making it a noun phrase rather than a full action statement.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is for per-container resource pressure, nor does it name any sibling tools or exclusion conditions. The only implicit hint is the metric names, but the agent has to infer the use case.

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