ako_cluster_overview

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. Description adds the specific data returned (VS count, pool count, health summary) but otherwise repeats the read aspect. This is adequate but minimal.

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?

The description is two sentences, no redundant words, and front-loaded with the read indicator. Extremely concise.

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?

Input schema is empty, output schema exists. The description covers purpose and usage context adequately. Could add more detail on how health summary is structured, but given output schema exists, this is sufficient.

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?

No parameters are defined, so the description does not need to add parameter semantics. Baseline 4 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?

The description clearly states the tool provides an overview across clusters, listing VS count, pool count, and health summary. It distinguishes from sibling tools like ako_clusters (likely just lists clusters) and ako_status (single-cluster), but could be more explicit about how it differs.

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 says 'Use for multi-cluster fleet health assessment', giving a clear use case. It does not contrast with alternatives, but the context of siblings implies it is for multi-cluster health, not single-cluster details.

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