ako_amko_status

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

Annotations already mark it read-only and idempotent; the description adds what is actually returned (AMKO pods in avi-system followed by the GSLBConfig YAML if present) and the reliance on the current kubectl context. This behavior is disclosed beyond the structured hints, though it omits possible failure modes.

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?

Three sentences front-load the purpose, then give the return payload and usage routing. Every sentence contributes information; there is no filler or repetition of schema data.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool with an output schema and rich sibling context, this description is complete: it states what is returned, when to use it, and the context caveat. No additional guidance is needed for correct invocation.

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 has zero parameters (0% schema requirement), so the baseline is 4 and the description does not need to document inputs. The only implicit input, the current kubectl context, is called out explicitly.

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?

Starts with '[READ]' and names the exact resource: AMKO (AVI Multi-Cluster Kubernetes Operator) GSLB status. It specifies the action (returns status) and differentiates from the single-cluster ako_status sibling, so an agent can select it correctly.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this only for multi-cluster GSLB questions' and directs the agent to ako_status for single-cluster AKO health. It also cautions that the tool always reads the current kubectl context, with a pointer to ako_clusters.

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