security_posture

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states that no Secret contents are read, which is a valuable safety disclosure. It also clarifies that findings are static, implying no live probing or mutation. It does not mention whether the tool requires special permissions or whether it performs any cluster-wide scanning, but the static and non-secret-reading disclosures are meaningful behavioral context.

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 core purpose and lists the finding categories compactly. The safety note about Secret contents is appended efficiently. No wasted words, though the long list of categories makes it slightly dense.

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 read-only security findings tool with no output schema, the description covers the main input semantics and a key safety behavior. However, it does not describe the output format, severity levels, or how findings are grouped, and it does not mention whether the tool requires any special permissions. Given the tool's complexity (multiple finding categories, severity filter), a bit more detail on output or severity behavior would improve completeness.

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 67%, so the schema already documents service and namespace. The description adds context for the service parameter by listing workload types (Deployment, StatefulSet, DaemonSet, Service, Pod), which is helpful. However, it does not explain min_severity semantics beyond the enum values, and the description does not compensate for the undocumented parameter (min_severity) beyond what the enum provides.

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 verb and resource: it returns static security findings for workloads, and enumerates the categories of findings (privileged/root, host namespaces, secrets in env, etc.). It is clear about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like get_rbac_for_workload or get_secret_usage. The scope is clear enough that an agent can tell it is a security posture assessment tool.

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: call it to get security findings for a workload. It mentions the namespace parameter is required and references list_namespaces, which gives a hint about prerequisites. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_rbac_for_workload, get_secret_usage, or get_network_policies, nor does it state when not to use it.

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