yaaif_mcp_deployment_k8s_status

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

With no annotations, the description itself discloses one behavior: it returns a clear error if K8s integration is disabled. 'Introspection' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state read-only/no side effects, permissions, or other failure modes.

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 with no filler; the core action is front-loaded and the error behavior is a useful second sentence. Every word 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 single-parameter introspection tool it conveys the resource type, what status is returned (pod + Deployment status), and a key failure mode. Given no annotations and no output schema, it is adequate, though it could add an explicit read-only note and more detail about returned status fields.

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 0% description coverage for deployment_id, and the description only ties it to 'a kubernetes_gitops deployment.' It does not clarify whether the value is a platform deployment ID or Kubernetes name, its format, or how to obtain it, so the description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 names a specific operation (Kubernetes runtime introspection) and resource (a kubernetes_gitops deployment) and specifies the status scope (pod + Deployment status). This is enough to distinguish it from generic deployment status, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools.

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?

It implies usage for kubernetes_gitops deployments and warns about the K8s-integration-disabled error case. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance relative to siblings like yaaif_mcp_deployment_status or logs, leaving selection mostly to inference.

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