check_service_mesh_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Inspect' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't disclose permission requirements, whether it fails or returns empty when Istio/Linkerd isn't installed, or whether the scan is limited to the given namespace or cluster-wide.

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?

A single compact sentence with the resource and the enumerated inspection targets front-loaded, and zero filler. Nothing in it needs to be trimmed.

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 diagnostic with a single optional parameter, the description names what is inspected, which partially compensates for the missing output schema. However, it omits scope-of-namespace behavior, prerequisites (mesh must be installed), and any indication of the result shape beyond the category names.

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 100%, and the schema already documents the single namespace parameter and its default. The description adds nothing about scope (namespace-only vs. all namespaces) or how the namespace affects the results, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Inspect) and a specific resource (Istio/Linkerd mesh config), then enumerates the concrete subject matter: VirtualServices, mTLS mode, and sidecar injection status. No sibling tool touches service-mesh configuration, so an agent can select this unambiguously.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives or exclusions. An agent must infer from the domain that this is the diagnostic tool for mesh-related questions rather than, say, general networking (analyze_network_policy, inspect_ingress_routing).

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