get_resource

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it mentions optional resourceContext rollups, describes the context tier options ('basic' vs 'none'), and clarifies it is not the best first call for broad incidents. This adds value without contradicting annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with usage guidance and key output details. Every sentence earns its place; no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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 read-only nature, 6 parameters, and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage order, alternatives, parameter behavior, and expected return content. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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% with detailed descriptions for all 6 parameters. The description adds a few examples (e.g., ambiguous kinds for group) and cross-references to diagnose for full tier, but largely relies on schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already carries most parameter meaning.

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 explicitly states what the tool does: 'Returns the resource's Kubernetes-shaped spec/status/metadata plus resourceContext when available (relationships, refs, issue/audit/policy rollups).' It clearly positions itself as 'the drill-down tool' and distinguishes from first-call tools and search.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use AFTER narrowing to one resource.' It names alternatives: 'Start with issues, get_dashboard, search, or list_resources to rank candidates; then call get_resource for the exact object.' Also instructs to use search for string lookups and group param for ambiguous kinds.

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