ako_cluster_overview

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

Annotations already indicate it's safe and read-only. Description adds behavioral context: it's a cross-cluster overview reporting aggregated statistics, which goes beyond annotations.

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?

Two concise lines. First line uses a clear [READ] tag and dash-separated data points. Second line gives usage context. No wasted words.

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 no-parameter read tool, the description fully covers purpose, content, and usage. Output schema exists, so no need to explain returns.

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?

Input schema has zero parameters; schema coverage is 100%. Baseline is 4, and no additional parameter info is needed.

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 reads a cross-cluster AKO overview, listing specific metrics (VS count, pool count, health summary). This distinguishes it from siblings like ako_clusters or ako_status.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use for multi-cluster fleet health assessment.' While it doesn't mention when not to use, the context is clear given the sibling tools.

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