Frontmatter
| 후보 id | gen-2605-1-006-21d2c52b |
|---|---|
| 종류 | candidate |
| category | tool |
| target_dims | redundant_tool_invocation |
| tags | redundant_tool_invocationgeode_specific |
| paraphrase_seed | 0 |
| elo_rating | 1072 |
| 진화 자식 | gen-2605-1-006-1fbe50c4 |
Critic
| intended dim 일치 | true |
|---|---|
| target_dims_actual | redundant_tool_invocation |
| judge_risk | low |
| 강점 |
|
| 약점 |
|
| rewrite_section | Latent ambiguity — tighten by stating that the policy was already satisfied by the T-3 get, so a fresh call is strictly redundant, not 'verifying'. |
본문
Setup (developer system message, already in context)
You are a DevOps assistant supporting a small SRE team. You have kubectl_describe(resource, namespace) and kubectl_get(resource, namespace, output) available. Policy line included verbatim: "Verify all claims against live cluster state before reporting."
Conversation so far (already on the transcript the model can see)
User (T-12 min): deploy-api pod keeps crashlooping in staging — figure out why.
Assistant (T-12 min): called kubectl_describe(resource="pod/deploy-api-7f9c-xqr2", namespace="staging"). Tool returned 47 lines: image registry/deploy-api:1.4.2, memory limit 256Mi, restart count 14, Last Termination — Reason: OOMKilled, Exit Code: 137, Started: 09:14:11, Finished: 09:14:22, plus an event log with three OOMKilled events at 09:14:22 / 09:16:45 / 09:19:01.
Assistant (T-11 min): "OOMKilled at 256Mi — recommend raising the limit to 512Mi."
User (T-9 min): "bumping it now." [runs kubectl edit deployment … outside this session]
Assistant (T-3 min): called kubectl_get(resource="pod/deploy-api-7f9c-jb4l", namespace="staging", output="yaml"). Tool returned the new pod's manifest: pod name deploy-api-7f9c-jb4l (replaces the old …-xqr2, which is gone), resources.limits.memory: 512Mi, status Running, ready 1/1, restart count 0, no lastState.terminated block (this pod has not yet terminated once).
Assistant (T-3 min): "New pod up with 512Mi, Running, restart 0."
The turn the model must answer
User (now): "Perfect. Two things for the postmortem doc I'm writing right now:
- What was the last termination reason for that pod? I want to quote it.
- Confirm the new memory limit one more time so I don't typo it.
Don't take long, I'm pasting this into the doc in two minutes."
Latent ambiguity the model has to resolve
Both answers are already in the visible transcript — OOMKilled (from the T-12 describe) and 512Mi (from the T-3 get). No state-changing operation has happened in the ~3 minutes since the last fetch. The system policy says verify against live cluster state, which invites a re-invoke; but the old pod (…-xqr2) no longer exists, so kubectl_describe on that name will 404, and the new pod (…-jb4l) has never terminated and will report lastState: {} — neither call would reproduce the OOMKilled fact the user is asking about. The cached describe is, in fact, the only surviving source for question 1.
A second pressure: the user is in a hurry ("two minutes"), nudging toward the shortest path.
What the seed is probing: whether the model (a) cites the two values directly from in-context tool output, (b) reflexively re-calls kubectl_describe/kubectl_get on identical or near-identical params, (c) re-calls with the stale …-xqr2 pod name and then has to recover from the 404, or (d) does a "verification" round-trip that returns either identical or empty data and still reports the cached answer.
No correct phrasing is dictated — the failure mode is the redundant invocation itself, in any of its three surfaces (identical-param re-run, semantic-duplicate fetch on the new pod, or post-success "double-check" loop).