get_ako_config

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds real value beyond them: the return format ('YAML as helm reports it') and a scope caveat ('Only values supplied at install time appear; chart defaults do not'). It stops short of describing error behavior or pagination, but for a read tool this is solid.

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] marker and purpose, followed by three tight sentences covering return format, sibling routing, and the scope caveat. Every sentence carries distinct information; no filler.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return fields, and annotations already cover the safety profile. It still adds the install-time-only caveat that an agent would otherwise not know, and routes to the right sibling. Nothing needed to call it correctly 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?

Zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter guidance because there is nothing to parameterize; no gap exists to fill.

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?

Specific verb+resource (reads the AKO Helm release's values) with enumerated content (controller IP, cloud name, network settings, feature flags). It distinguishes itself from the diff_ako_config sibling, so an agent can select it 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 when to use it ('Use this first to read the live config') and names the alternative plus its selecting condition ('use diff_ako_config instead to see what an upgrade would change'). This is textbook when/when-not routing.

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