oc_describe

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 only mentions output formats, omitting important traits like whether it requires an authenticated cluster, whether it is read-only, error behavior, or what a human-readable summary includes.

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 front-loaded sentence that states the core action and key output capability. It is appropriately concise, though the word 'share' is slightly vague and could be replaced with clearer language like 'returns' or 'displays'.

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 is minimally viable: it states the action and mentions output formats, and the schema covers all parameters. However, given the ambiguity among sibling tools and the lack of annotations or output schema, it could benefit from usage guidance and behavioral details to be fully complete.

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 input schema fully documents all five parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond mentioning output formats, which the schema already captures via the 'output' enum and description.

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 uses the specific verb 'Describe' and names the resource type ('any OpenShift resource'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like oc_get and oc_explain. It also mentions the key differentiator of multiple output formats, including human-readable summary.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of oc_get or oc_explain. The description implies a describe operation, but does not state when this is preferred over alternatives or any exclusions.

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