get_ingress_routes

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 mentions the tool returns TLS coverage and dangling backends, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, if it could be expensive on large clusters, or if it requires special permissions. The description lacks any explicit behavioral traits beyond the output summary.

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, terse phrase that conveys the core functionality without waste. It is front-loaded with the primary mapping and adds secondary aspects. It is appropriately concise, though it is a fragment rather than a full sentence, which slightly reduces clarity.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should clarify what the agent can expect as a return value (e.g., a list of routes with fields). It also does not explain terms like 'dangling backends' or the exact scope of TLS coverage. Given the complexity of ingress routing and the presence of many related tools, the description is too minimal for an agent to fully understand its capabilities and limitations.

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 tool description itself does not mention parameters, but the schema already documents the namespace parameter with a description (including a note about it being required despite schema not marking it so). Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but it does not need to because the schema is adequate.

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 function: mapping ingress hosts/paths to services, reporting TLS coverage, and identifying dangling backends. This is specific and distinct from sibling tools like get_tls_status (focused solely on TLS) and get_endpoints (endpoint-level data). The purpose is immediately understandable.

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 does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone, which is insufficient given the large set of networking siblings.

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