ako_sync_diff

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint; the description adds context about heuristic matching for shard-mode Ingresses and advises caution ('confirm before acting'). No contradiction with 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?

The description is mostly concise with a clear structure (purpose, usage, args), but the note about shard-mode could be slightly tighter. Still, every sentence earns its place.

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 tool's simplicity (read-only list with one optional param and an output schema), the description covers return value, usage context, and parameter details sufficiently. 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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description explains the only parameter 'context' as a K8s context name, adding meaning beyond the schema's type-only definition. This fully compensates for the missing schema documentation.

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 clearly states it is a READ operation that lists Ingresses with no matching Virtual Service or pool on the Controller, and specifies what it returns (Type, namespace/name, Status). It distinguishes itself from siblings like ako_sync_status and ako_sync_force.

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?

It explicitly says when to use (when ako_sync_status reports a mismatch) and when to confirm (shard-mode Ingresses should be verified with pool_list). The phrase 'Use when...' provides clear situational guidance.

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