get_ingress_controller

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. The 'Get' verb and resource specification make the read-only nature clear, and parameter defaults are disclosed. However, it does not describe not-found behavior, permission requirements, or any 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: one precise purpose sentence followed by concise parameter docs. Every line adds value and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 simple getter with an output schema present, the description covers the essential input semantics and resource identity. It does not over-explain return values, which the output schema handles. Slight gaps remain around error cases and cluster targeting details, but they are minor for this tool.

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 compensate. It does define both parameters: name as the IngressController name with default 'default', and cluster as the named cluster target with empty meaning the default cluster. This is adequate for two simple parameters.

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 clearly specifies the verb 'Get' and the exact resource: an OpenShift IngressController from operator.openshift.io/v1. This distinguishes it from generic getters like get_resource and from other resource-specific getters in the sibling list.

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 intended use is implied by the resource and API group, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives like run_oc_command or get_resource. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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