ako_config_show

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds valuable behavior beyond that: it returns YAML as Helm reports it and explicitly notes that chart defaults are excluded, which is useful and not redundant with the annotations.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: the [READ] marker, the resource and content summary, the output format, the usage order, the alternative tool, and the critical install-time-only caveat are all packed into three tight sentences. No fluff.

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 no-parameter read-only tool with a rich annotation set and an output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs: what it returns, how to invoke it first, when to choose the sibling, and a key data limitation. Nothing important is missing.

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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is no parameter ambiguity, and the schema is fully covered vacuously. The description appropriately focuses on behavior instead of parameter details.

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?

Description states a clear verb ('read') and specific resource ('AKO Helm release's values'), with examples such as controller IP, cloud name, and network settings. It is clearly distinguished from the sibling ako_config_diff, which reads as a comparison tool for upgrades.

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?

Explicit guidance says 'Use this first to read the live config' and directs the agent to ako_config_diff instead 'to see what an upgrade would change.' It also clarifies the limitation that only install-time values appear, not chart defaults, which helps set expectations.

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