get_ako_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the returned fields, the negative-result workflow, and the scoping constraint that it only checks one namespace. It stops short of detailing failure modes or traversal behavior, 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 verb and resource, then scope, then workflow routing. Every sentence carries load: nothing is redundant filler despite the length.

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 annotations covering safety, an output schema covering return values, and the description covering scope and decision workflow, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly and route to siblings on failure.

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?

With a single optional parameter and 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents 'context' including its default. The description doesn't add syntax or format guidance beyond noting the one-context scope, 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?

States a specific verb (Check) and resource (AKO pod status), clarifies it operates in Kubernetes, and names its scope. The 'one context's AKO namespace only' note distinguishes it from the sibling list_ako_clusters without needing to open 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?

Explicitly positions the tool as the 'First step for Ingress or LoadBalancer issues' and prescribes the follow-up path ('follow with get_ako_logs when it is not Running'). It also names the fallback tool (list_ako_clusters) and the condition ('if not found') that selects it.

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