oc_scale

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

The description accurately discloses the core behavior—changing replica counts—but does not mention side effects like rolling updates, potential downtime when scaling down, or required permissions. With no annotations, the description carries a moderate burden, but it remains truthful and understandable.

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, concise sentence that gets straight to the point without any filler. It is well-structured and easy to parse, conveying the essential action and resource types efficiently.

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 five parameters are fully documented in the schema, the description covers the core purpose adequately. The only missing context is what the command returns (e.g., status output), but for a scaling operation this is not critical and the description is otherwise complete for execution.

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 parameter descriptions already provide the necessary semantics. The tool description adds minimal additional value beyond stating the replica count target, which is already covered by the 'replicas' parameter 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 a specific verb ('Scale') and clearly identifies the action ('number of pods') and the target resources ('deployment, deploymentconfig, replicaset, or statefulset'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like oc_delete or oc_patch by specifying the scaling action and resource scope.

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 intended usage is implied by the name and description: use it to scale pod counts on a set of resource types. However, there is no explicit 'when to use' guidance or mention of alternatives like oc_patch for updating replicas, leaving some ambiguity for agents comparing tools.

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