list_ako_clusters

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: it documents the failure mode ('Fails when no context could be read'), the semantic distinction that 'Unreachable'/'Unreadable' means unknown rather than absent, the kubectl-on-PATH prerequisite, and a latency warning because every context is probed.

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 the core action, then the return semantics, prerequisites, and routing hint. Dense but every clause carries information an agent needs; nothing is 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, return values need not be re-explained, yet the description still clarifies the ambiguous status tokens and the failure condition. Nothing needed to invoke or interpret this tool 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 — there is nothing parameter-wise for the description to clarify or compensate for.

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+scope: 'List every Kubernetes context in the active kubeconfig and whether AKO is deployed there.' That clearly separates it from siblings like get_ako_status (single context) and list_ako_ingresses (different resource).

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 itself as the entry point ('Start here for context names') and names the downstream alternatives (get_ako_status, get_ako_logs, diagnose_ako_ingress) with the condition that selects them. Routing is unambiguous.

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