ako_sync_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, but the description adds meaningful behavioral nuance: this is a cheap preliminary count comparison, not a full diff, and shard mode can produce false mismatches. It also states exactly what the tool returns, going beyond the structured safety hints without contradicting them.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: the operation and resources, the returned verdict, and the critical usage caveat. It is front-loaded with the purpose and avoids any filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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, rich annotations, an existing output schema, and clear sibling guidance, this description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool does, what it returns, when to use it as a first check, and what caveat to keep in mind—nothing needed for correct invocation 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?

There is only one optional context parameter, and the input schema already describes it as 'K8s context name (optional)' with 100% coverage. The description adds no further parameter detail, but none is needed since the schema fully documents the parameter.

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 ('Compare') and two concrete resources (K8s Ingresses and AVI Virtual Services), and states the output (counts plus a match/mismatch verdict). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling ako_sync_diff by noting the latter identifies which objects differ, so an agent can tell them apart.

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 gives explicit usage direction: 'Use this first as a cheap check, then ako_sync_diff for which objects differ.' It also sets expectations by explaining the comparison is count-only and that a mismatch is not necessarily a problem in AKO shard mode, which prevents the agent from over-trusting the result.

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