check_ako_ingress

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real value: it discloses a degradation mode ('TLS checks are skipped when its secrets cannot be listed'), which an agent must know to interpret a clean result. It stops short of describing pagination or failure behavior on an invalid namespace.

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?

Every sentence earns its place — purpose, return shape, prerequisite, alternative, and scope caveat — and the core action is front-loaded in the first clause. It is dense rather than padded, though the return-field enumeration is arguably redundant given an output schema exists.

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 two-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what is validated, how to obtain a namespace, which sibling to use for the single-Ingress case, and the scope and TLS-listing limitations. Nothing required 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description only implies namespace scoping and points at list_ako_ingresses as a source of valid names; it adds no syntax, format, or default-value detail beyond what the schema already documents.

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?

States a specific verb and resource with explicit scope: 'Validate every Ingress in one namespace', and immediately names the two things it checks (IngressClass and TLS secret references). It also distinguishes itself from both siblings by name, so an agent can route correctly without opening any schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use and alternatives: 'Run list_ako_ingresses first for namespace names; use diagnose_ako_ingress instead for one named Ingress.' It also states the boundary condition ('Covers one namespace only'), which is exactly the kind of disambiguation an agent needs before invoking.

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