Validate Kubernetes manifests

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description goes beyond these by revealing that the tool catches mistakes that survive kubectl apply, and by stating the return behavior: 'Returns valid=false with human-readable errors when the manifests would break.' This gives the agent an accurate mental model of what happens when the tool runs.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a clear usage directive and return-value note. The long enumeration of validation categories is verbose but earns its place by communicating the tool's full scope. Every sentence adds value, though a bit of tightening would be possible.

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?

With only one parameter, an output schema present, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what it validates, when to run it, and what a failure returns. No critical selection or invocation information is missing.

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?

The schema has one required 'path' parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It implies path refers to the manifests being checked, but never explicitly states whether it should be a file, directory, or repository-local path. The tool's title and purpose make the parameter inferable, but the exact accepted format remains a 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 specific verb ('Check') and resource ('manifests'), then enumerates concrete failure classes such as selectors matching no pods, Service targetPort mismatches, and missing ConfigMap/Secret/PVC references. This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like generate_manifests, apply_manifests, and verify_deployment.

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 explicitly instructs 'ALWAYS run this before deploying', giving a clear and strong when-to-use directive. It does not explicitly list when-not-to-use scenarios or alternative tools, so it falls just short of a perfect score, but the pre-deployment context is unambiguous.

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