ako_status

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

The annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description doesn't need to restate those. It adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the tool checks only one context's AKO namespace, returns specific status fields, and is designed as the first diagnostic step. This gives the agent a clearer picture of operational behavior without over-explaining.

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 yet information-dense: every sentence earns its place. It front-loads the core purpose and read-only marker, then delivers output details, usage context, and fallback guidance without repetition or filler. The structure moves from 'what' to 'when' to 'what's next', which is easy for an agent to parse.

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 tool with one optional parameter and a single narrow purpose, the description is fully sufficient. It covers the expected inputs, outputs, scope limitation, and next-step tools, and an output schema is already available for return-value details. Nothing an agent needs to select and invoke this tool correctly 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?

Schema coverage is 100% since the single optional 'context' parameter is already documented as 'K8s context name (optional, uses current context)'. The description adds some relevant scope nuance by saying the tool 'Looks in one context's AKO namespace only', but it does not materially expand on the parameter's format or default behavior. A baseline of 3 is appropriate here as the schema already carries the parameter meaning.

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 opens with a clear action: 'Check AKO pod status in Kubernetes', and it names the concrete resource (AKO pod) and what is returned (pod name, phase, ready flag, restart count, namespace). It also distinguishes itself from related AKO tools by positioning itself as the 'First step for Ingress or LoadBalancer issues' and pointing to ako_logs and ako_clusters as follow-ups. This is a specific, well-scoped purpose with no ambiguity.

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 when to use this tool ('First step for Ingress or LoadBalancer issues') and what to do afterward ('follow with ako_logs when it is not Running'). It also explains a boundary case: 'Looks in one context's AKO namespace only — run ako_clusters if not found.' This gives the agent clear routing to alternatives without leaving it to inference.

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