inspect_ingress_routing

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the safety profile, and 'validate'/'inspect' plus the concrete check list reasonably implies a non-mutating diagnostic. However, it does not state whether it fails or reports on a missing IngressClass, what the result shape is, or whether cluster-wide read permissions are needed.

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 front-loaded line that names the verb first and then the two checks; there is no filler. Size is proportionate to a two-optional-parameter read tool.

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 two-parameter diagnostic with no output schema, the description covers what is checked but not how to interpret a failure or how results relate to the endpoint-checking sibling. Minimal viable, with a clear gap around outcome semantics.

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% — both parameters (namespace with a stated default, optional ingress_name) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or scoping detail beyond that, so 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 (validate) and resource (ingress routing) and enumerates the two concrete checks performed: IngressClass existence and backend service endpoints. This distinguishes it from most siblings, though it does not explicitly separate itself from the overlapping check_service_endpoints.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, despite siblings like check_service_endpoints and analyze_network_policy covering adjacent ground. The prerequisite context (e.g., 'use when an Ingress returns 503') is left entirely for the agent to infer.

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