get_ako_logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: output is raw log text rather than a table, and only the running container's logs are returned (previous-container logs are unavailable). The '[READ]' tag is redundant with readOnlyHint, and no auth/rate-limit caveats are given, keeping it at 4.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the read tag and resource, then output format, then trigger conditions. Every sentence carries distinct information (scope, output shape, routing) with no repetition of the schema.

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 zero-required-param diagnostic read with an output schema present and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything the agent needs: what it retrieves, the output form (raw text, not tabular), the container limitation, and the upstream signals that should trigger the call.

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% — tail, since, and context are each documented inline with defaults and examples. The description adds no parameter syntax or defaults of its own; the 'running container only' note implicitly constrains what the params can address but is not parameter documentation. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (AKO pod logs) plus the diagnostic scope it covers: Ingress creation failures, sync errors, Controller connectivity. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_ako_status (health summary) and get_ako_config (configuration), so an agent can route without opening either 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?

Gives explicit trigger conditions tied to named siblings: 'Use when get_ako_status shows the pod unhealthy or diff_ako_sync reports a missing Ingress.' That is a clear diagnostic path. It stops short of stating when not to use it (e.g. use list_ako_ingresses for inventory rather than log forensics), so it is strong but not complete routing guidance.

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