ako_logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description adds that only running container logs are returned, output is raw text not a table, and logs contain specific error types. No contradictions. Adds behavioral context beyond 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?

Description is concise: one-line tag, two sentences of purpose/when, then three bullet-point args. No redundant phrases. Every sentence adds value. Front-loaded with [READ] tag and key purpose.

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?

Output schema exists, so description needn't detail return structure. It clarifies output is raw log text (not table). With 3 simple params, good usage guidance, and annotations covering safety, the description is fully adequate for agent decision-making and 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?

Schema has 0% description coverage, so description carries burden. It explains tail (default 100 lines), since (time window like '30m'), and context (optional, uses current). Adds meaning beyond schema properties but does not specify format constraints or edge cases (e.g., since default null behavior). Adequate but not exhaustive.

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 explicitly states it reads AKO pod logs for ingress creation failures, sync errors, and Controller connectivity. It distinguishes from sibling tools like ako_sync_diff and vs_error_logs by specifying the source (AKO pod) and content scope. Clear verb+resource+scope.

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?

Description explicitly advises use when ako_status shows unhealthy pod or ako_sync_diff reports missing Ingress. Provides clear triggers for invocation. Could mention when not to use, but the guidance is specific and actionable.

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