ako_ingress_check

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

Annotations already mark it as read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world. The description adds behavioral context by stating it checks for 'unsupported or misspelled AKO annotations', which explains the type of issues detected. This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 brief with three sentences: purpose, explanation, and argument listing. It is front-loaded and avoids waste. A slightly more structured format (e.g., bullet points) could improve readability, but it remains efficient.

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 only two parameters, clear annotations, and an output schema (not shown), the description provides sufficient context for use. It explains the tool's action and the error condition it detects. The output format is not described, but the presence of an output schema mitigates this gap.

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 description adds clear semantics for both parameters: namespace is 'K8s namespace to check' and context is 'K8s context name (optional)'. Since the schema has 0% description coverage, this compensation is valuable and makes the parameters meaningful.

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 validates Ingress annotations in a namespace, specifically checking for unsupported or misspelled AKO annotations that prevent VirtualService creation. The verb 'validate' and resource 'Ingress annotations in a namespace' are specific and distinct from sibling tools like ako_ingress_diagnose or ako_ingress_fix_suggest.

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?

The description implies usage for checking annotations that might prevent VS creation but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusion criteria, or specific scenarios where other tools are preferred.

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