ingress_get

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares a safe read, so the bar is lower; the '[READ]' tag is redundant with the annotation. The description does add real behavioral value by explaining that omitting 'namespace' falls back to the target's default namespace, but it says nothing about errors or return shape.

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?

Front-loads the '[READ]' marker and purpose, then a compact Args list covering every parameter. No filler; appropriately sized for a simple read tool.

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 annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description is nearly complete for a single-resource read: it names the resource, the returned content, and all parameter semantics. Only error/pagination behavior is unstated, which is minor here.

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 carry the full burden; it documents all three parameters meaningfully — 'name' cross-referenced to ingress_list, 'namespace' default behavior, and 'target' as a k8s target name from config. This compensates well for the empty schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Return detail for a single ingress') and adds scope ('including path→backend rules'), which tells the agent what content to expect. The word 'single' implicitly contrasts with ingress_list, though no sibling is named explicitly for differentiation.

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?

Usage is implied by the get-vs-list distinction and the parenthetical '(see ingress_list)' routes toward the sibling list tool, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or prerequisite guidance.

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