ako_ingress_diagnose

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds value by specifying the diagnostic checks performed (annotations, TLS config, service endpoints, AKO logs), which gives behavioral context beyond the annotations. No contradictions with 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?

The description is concise: a one-line summary, a list of checks, then parameter details. Every sentence is functional and no filler. The structure is clear, though slightly more separation between sections could improve readability.

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?

Given the tool's purpose (diagnose missing VS) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what it does, what it checks, and the parameters. It is complete enough for a read-only diagnostic tool, though it could hint at expected output format or next steps.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The 'Args' section provides brief explanations for each parameter (name, namespace, context) including defaults and optionality. While minimal, this adds meaning beyond the schema's type definitions. Could include more details but meets the baseline.

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's purpose: 'Diagnose why a specific Ingress has no corresponding Virtual Service.' It specifies the verb 'diagnose' and the resource 'Ingress', and lists specific checks (annotations, TLS config, service endpoints, AKO logs). Among siblings like ako_ingress_check and ako_ingress_fix_suggest, this tool's role is distinct—focused on diagnosing missing VS.

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 when an Ingress has no corresponding Virtual Service, but does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer from the sibling list. Some guidance would improve clarity.

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