run

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 states 'Run a pod' which implies a creation/execution operation, but doesn't clarify if this is a one-time execution, whether it persists, what permissions are required, or potential side effects like resource consumption. It misses key behavioral traits like whether it's idempotent or how it handles errors.

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 extremely concise with a single, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse and understand immediately.

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?

For a tool that creates/executes pods (a potentially complex operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'Run' entails operationally, what the expected outcome is, or any constraints. Given the lack of structured data to compensate, more context about behavior and results is needed.

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 schema already documents all four parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'with a specific image' which corresponds to the 'image' parameter, but doesn't provide additional context beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 the action ('Run') and resource ('a pod'), specifying the key parameter ('with a specific image'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create-namespace' or 'debug-pod' by focusing on pod execution, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar tools like 'exec' or 'debug-pod' that also interact with pods.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention when to choose 'run' over 'create-deployment' or 'debug-pod', nor does it specify prerequisites like needing cluster access or appropriate permissions. The description lacks context for selection among the many sibling tools.

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