k8s_diagnose_application

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the tool automatically detects problems and returns a structured report with severity and recommendations, which is good. However, it doesn't disclose if the tool is read-only or any potential 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 concise with 4 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and each sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

The description adequately covers the output (structured report) and main purpose, but lacks parameter definitions and context about when to use it vs siblings. With no output schema, the output description is minimal but sufficient.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the parameters (context, namespace, app_name, resource_type). For example, 'context' is ambiguous (likely kubectl context), and 'resource_type' defaults to deployment but no other types mentioned.

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 it diagnoses Kubernetes applications by checking multiple resources and logs, and it automatically detects common issues like CrashLoopBackOff, OOMKilled, etc. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on single resource types or logs.

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 troubleshooting application issues but does not explicitly specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like k8s_get_pod_logs or k8s_describe. No when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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