query_events

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

While the annotations already declare read-only and non-destructive behavior, the description adds valuable behavioral context: events are returned newest first, namespace filtering defaults to all namespaces when empty, and the limit defaults to 40. These details go beyond the annotation coverage.

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 and well-structured: the opening line states the purpose, the Args block covers parameters, and a final sentence gives the use case. No words are wasted, and important information is front-loaded.

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 simple read-only nature, the presence of an output schema, and the rich annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, parameter semantics, and behavioral details. It is complete for its context.

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?

With zero description coverage in the input schema, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: cluster (managed cluster name), namespace (optional filter, empty means all), and limit (maximum events, default 40). This is all an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly.

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 that the tool returns recent Kubernetes events from a managed cluster, newest first. This specific verb-resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_pod_logs and get_audit_trail. The use case for troubleshooting unhealthy pods further clarifies its role.

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 explicitly says to use this tool to find the root cause of unhealthy pods, providing a clear context. It does not name alternative diagnostic tools or exclusion criteria, but the guidance is specific enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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