ingress_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('Get details'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, error handling, rate limits, or what 'Detailed information' entails. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first. The Args and Returns sections are structured clearly, though the 'Returns' line is vague. There's minimal waste, but the lack of richer context prevents a perfect score.

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?

Given the complexity of Kubernetes operations, no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format, error cases, or dependencies, leaving the agent under-informed for a tool that interacts with cluster resources.

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?

The description lists all three parameters (context_name, namespace, name) with brief explanations, adding meaning beyond the schema's 0% coverage. However, it doesn't elaborate on format constraints, valid values, or examples, leaving the agent with basic but incomplete semantic guidance. Given the low schema coverage, this partially compensates but not fully.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get details of a specific Ingress.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Ingress'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ingress_list' or 'ingress_update,' which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'ingress_list' for listing multiple ingresses or 'ingress_update' for modifications, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. This leaves the agent without contextual usage information.

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