get_ingress

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. The verb 'Get' implies a safe read operation, but the description does not disclose any additional behavioral details such as error conditions, response format, or whether the resource must exist. It adds minimal value beyond the name.

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 a single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. There is no wasted verbiage, and it is easy to parse.

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 no output schema, annotations, or parameter descriptions, the description is insufficient for a tool with three parameters. It does not explain what 'detailed information' includes, how cluster_alias affects behavior, or how the return value is structured. The description leaves too much to inference.

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%, and the description provides no information about the three parameters (name, namespace, cluster_alias). The description only says 'specific Ingress,' which hints at 'name' but leaves namespace and cluster_alias unexplained. This is a significant gap since the description must compensate for the lack of schema-level descriptions.

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 states the action ('Get') and the resource ('specific Ingress'), which is distinct from sibling tools like list_ingresses. The verb and resource are unambiguous, and the scope ('specific') signals that this is a single-object retrieval tool.

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 description implies usage when detailed information about a single Ingress is needed, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this over alternatives (e.g., list_ingresses) or provide exclusions. The guidance is implied rather than stated.

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