Get namespace events

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds useful behavioral context: events are recent and returned oldest first. It also explains the kind of content the caller should expect in the events. No description-annotation contradiction.

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?

Two sentences; the first delivers the core action and ordering, the second supplies diagnostic context. No filler or repetition, and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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 combination of read-only annotations, an output schema, and a clear use-case sentence covers the core invocation decision. However, the missing parameter semantics for limit and namespace means an agent must guess filter behavior, so the definition is not 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 coverage is 0%, so the description needed to explain limit and namespace, but it never mentions either parameter. Names and defaults are inferable, but behavior like namespace=null meaning all namespaces or limit truncating the returned list is absent. This is the definition's main gap.

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 opens with a direct action ('Return ... events'), names the resource type (Kubernetes events), and specifies ordering ('oldest first'). The diagnostic use cases distinguish it from pod-status tools like get_pods, so the purpose is unambiguous.

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 second sentence explicitly ties the tool to event-driven failure modes (scheduling, image pull, probe, volume) that 'pod status alone does not' explain. This gives the agent a clear trigger condition and implies the alternative is to check pod status first. It doesn't name a specific sibling tool, so it falls just short of a fully explicit routing rule.

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