ako_ingress_map

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the '[READ]' marker adds little. However, the description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: it returns only the K8s-side perspective, not controller-side state, and explicitly scopes the inventory to all namespaces. This helps the agent understand what the operation does and does not cover.

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 compact and front-loaded with '[READ]' and the primary purpose. Every sentence earns its place: one states scope and output, one gives the follow-up workflow, and one clarifies the boundary against a sibling tool. There is no extraneous text.

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 the low complexity, single optional parameter, existing output schema, and rich annotations, the description provides everything an agent needs to select and invoke this tool correctly. It states the target resource, the returned fields, the follow-up tools, and the exclusion for missing Controller objects.

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 schema already documents the single parameter 'context' as 'K8s context name (optional)' with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter detail, so the baseline of 3 applies; it neither clarifies nor obscures the parameter semantics.

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 names a specific verb ('Inventory'), a clear resource ('Kubernetes Ingresses'), and a scope ('across all namespaces'). It also differentiates itself from siblings by stating this returns Namespace, Ingress name, Host(s), and IngressClass, and by referring to ako_ingress_check, ako_ingress_diagnose, and ako_sync_diff as alternatives for different steps.

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 explicitly says to start here for namespace and Ingress names, then pass them to ako_ingress_check or ako_ingress_diagnose. It also states the boundary: 'Lists the K8s side only' and directs the agent to use ako_sync_diff for Ingresses with no Controller object, making when-to-use and when-not-to-use clear.

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