k8s_get_ingress

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. 'Get Ingress details' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify if it returns structured data, YAML, or status information, nor does it mention error handling (e.g., if the ingress doesn't exist) or permissions required. This is a significant gap for a tool with no 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 extremely concise with just three words, which is efficient and front-loaded. However, it may be overly terse, risking under-specification by not providing enough context for effective tool use, though it avoids unnecessary verbosity.

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, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'details' include (e.g., configuration, status), return format, or error cases. For a tool with 2 parameters and no structured output, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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 100%, with both parameters ('name' and 'namespace') clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Get Ingress details' clearly indicates a read operation on Kubernetes Ingress resources, which is better than a tautology. However, it lacks specificity about what details are retrieved (e.g., configuration, status, rules) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'k8s_list_ingresses' or 'k8s_describe_pod', making it vague rather than precise.

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 when to prefer it over 'k8s_list_ingresses' for listing all ingresses or 'k8s_get_resource_yaml' for raw YAML, nor does it specify prerequisites like cluster access or namespace context. This leaves the agent without usage context.

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