diff_ako_sync

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the per-Ingress return shape, and importantly the heuristic shard-mode matching that can produce false 'Missing' results, with a mitigation (confirm via list_lb_pools). It stops short of describing volume/pagination, so not a 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 the [READ] tag and a one-line purpose, then usage and caveats in tight sentences. The 'Returns Type, namespace/name and Status' sentence is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists, but the rest 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 an output schema, annotations covering safety, and full schema description coverage, the definition supplies the remaining operational context an agent needs: when to invoke, what it returns, and how to validate ambiguous results. Nothing critical 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% and there is only one optional 'context' parameter already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb and resource with scope: 'List Ingresses with no matching Virtual Service or pool on the Controller.' This is clearly distinct from sibling read tools like list_ako_ingresses and check_ako_ingress, and from the reconciliation tool force_ako_sync.

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 says when to use it ('Use when get_ako_sync_status reports a mismatch'), names the alternative that reconciles ('force_ako_sync reconciles'), and adds a pre-condition caveat to confirm results via list_lb_pools. When/when-not/alternatives are all present.

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