health_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a wide range of checks (network policies, TLS, security findings, etc.) and mentions 'suggested actions', giving a good sense of behavior. It does not explicitly state that it is read-only or discuss permissions/rate limits, but the digest nature implies no side effects.

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 long sentence that front-loads the purpose ('RUNBOOK Monday morning digest') and then lists many covered items. It is dense but informative; while it could be broken into structured bullets, the information is efficiently packed without fluff.

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 the tool's complexity, the description covers the scope of checks and suggests actions, which is helpful. However, it does not describe the output format (text, JSON, structured list) or any prerequisites beyond a namespace. Since there is no output schema, the agent is left guessing about the return structure, which is a notable gap.

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?

The schema has one parameter 'namespace' with a description stating it is required with no default and references list_namespaces. The tool description only mentions 'for a namespace', adding no additional syntax, format, or edge-case details beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 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 produces a 'digest' for a namespace, listing specific health aspects (unhealthy pods, restarts, warnings, resource pressure, etc.). The verb 'digest' and the resource 'namespace' are explicit, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being a comprehensive overview rather than a focused metric query.

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 phrase 'RUNBOOK Monday morning digest' implies a routine health check, and the long list of covered areas suggests it is for a broad overview. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over more specific siblings (e.g., get_hpa_status, get_node_pressure), nor does it mention exclusions. The implied use is clear but not formally contrasted.

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