ako_clusters

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable context: it requires kubectl, probes every context, and warns about latency from unreachable clusters. This supplements the annotations well.

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 two sentences long with no wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose and output; the second provides usage guidance and prerequisites. Highly efficient.

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 zero parameters, rich annotations, and a clearly described output, the description is fully adequate. It also ties into sibling tools for the next steps. No gaps remain.

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, so schema description coverage is 100%. The description does not need to explain parameters. Baseline 4 is appropriate.

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 starts with [READ] and clearly states it lists Kubernetes contexts and AKO deployment status. It also specifies the output fields (Context, AKO Status, Version). This distinguishes it from siblings by explicitly recommending it as the starting point.

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 explicit guidance: 'Start here for context names, then pass one to ako_status, ako_logs or ako_ingress_diagnose.' It also notes prerequisites (kubectl on PATH) and behavioral caveats (unreachable clusters add latency).

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