Get Events

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful scoping behavior by explaining the namespace can target one namespace or all namespaces, but it does not disclose any further behavioral details such as field_selector filtering, event ordering, or pagination. This is acceptable but not rich.

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 focused sentence that leads with the action and resource, then covers the main scoping option. It contains no filler and earns its place.

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 simple read-only tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and namespace behavior. However, it omits critical semantics for field_selector and says nothing about what the returned events contain or any limits. It is minimally viable but leaves notable gaps for an agent.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for explaining parameters. It partially explains namespace via 'specific namespace or all namespaces', but field_selector is left entirely unexplained. Since the schema only provides the name and type, an agent gets insufficient guidance on one of the two parameters.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get Kubernetes events from the cluster.' It also specifies the scoping options ('specific namespace or all namespaces'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on pods, logs, deployments, and other resources.

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 tells what the tool does but provides no guidance on when to choose it over sibling tools like get_logs, list_pods, or get_resource. There is no mention of alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisite context, so an agent is left to infer when events are the right resource.

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