AKS workloads

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

Annotations already mark it read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent; the description adds that authentication uses the caller's Entra ID account and that the data is live from the Kubernetes API. It also defines what 'problems' filters to, providing behavioral detail beyond the structured annotations.

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?

Three sentences front-load the core read-only workload purpose, explain the default behavior, enumerate views, and state the optional namespace. No filler or repetition of schema details.

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 read-only listing tool with a small parameter set, the description covers purpose, auth, views, and namespace scoping. There is no output schema, but the absence of a return-format description is a minor gap because the semantics of each view are already explained.

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 complete, so the baseline is a 3. The description adds real value by explaining the semantic difference between the 'problems' view and the 'everything' views, and by noting that namespace is optional; 'limit' remains schema-described but not enriched.

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 and resource: 'Reads live workload state from an AKS cluster's Kubernetes API'. It enumerates distinct views and explains what the default 'problems' view returns, making the tool easy to distinguish from siblings like azure_aks_overview and azure_aks_pod_logs.

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 default 'problems' view is presented as the triage/high-signal path and other views are described as listing everything, which is clear usage context. However, it never explicitly contrasts this tool with sibling tools such as azure_aks_overview or azure_aks_pod_logs, so an agent must infer when this one should be selected instead.

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