diagnose_ako_ingress

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), but the description adds real behavioral detail beyond them: the exact validation targets (IngressClass 'avi'/'avi-lb', TLS secrets, backend Services) and a precise error contract distinguishing a true 404 'Not found' from any other failure, which is reported as 'could not be read' with the HTTP status. It stops short of describing permissions or rate limits, so 4 rather than 5.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and then layered with validation scope, error semantics and routing in a logical order; every sentence carries usable information. The 'Returns annotations, a numbered issue list and kubectl fixes' clause is somewhat wasted since an output schema exists, which keeps it from a 5.

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 single-resource diagnostic with four annotations and an output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs to call it correctly: when to reach for it, what it inspects, how errors are reported, and where to go next. Nothing material 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%, so name, namespace and context are fully documented in the schema and the description does not need to compensate. The description adds no param-level detail beyond the schema (the 'avi'/'avi-lb' values describe a validated field, not an input), so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Starts with a specific verb+resource ('Diagnose why one Ingress has no corresponding AVI Virtual Service') and immediately narrows the scope to a single Ingress rather than the fleet. It also names the siblings that frame its position (list_ako_ingresses, get_ako_logs, get_ako_sync_status), so an agent can place it in the workflow without opening the 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?

Explicitly states the precondition ('Use list_ako_ingresses first to find Ingresses lacking a VS') and the fallback path when this tool comes back clean ('try get_ako_logs and get_ako_sync_status'). It also declares the boundary of what it covers ('Checks configuration only'), which tells the agent when this tool is the wrong lever.

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