get_ako_version

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and open-world access. The description adds genuinely useful non-obvious context beyond them: the tag is the sole source, so a 'latest' tag is reported literally rather than resolved to a version number. That caveat materially affects how an agent interprets the result.

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 the core statement, then usage, then the caveat — three short sentences with no filler. Every sentence carries distinct information (what, when, gotcha).

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is unnecessary, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description still covers purpose, sequencing relative to siblings, and the tag-source limitation, which is everything an agent needs to call it correctly.

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?

There is one optional parameter ('context') and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents it ('K8s context name (optional)'). The description adds no semantics about context selection or defaults, leaving the baseline of 3 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+resource ('AKO version running in a cluster') and immediately names the data source ('read from the pod's image tag'), which distinguishes it from get_ako_status, get_ako_config, and get_ako_sync_status. An agent can identify the tool's scope 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use conditions: 'check compatibility with the Controller' and 'before diff_ako_config or upgrade_ako_config so both target the installed chart.' It names the sibling tools it sequences against, so the agent knows both the trigger and the ordering.

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