ako_ingress_fix_suggest

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.) already cover safety profile. Description adds that it returns suggestions, but no details on potential side effects or external dependencies. Adequate but not enhanced.

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?

Very concise: one-line purpose statement followed by parameter list. Front-loaded with key information. No unnecessary 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?

Given 3 params, output schema, and rich annotations, description covers purpose, output, and parameters. Missing explicit link to diagnostic tools in workflow, but overall adequate.

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 coverage is 0%, but description explains each parameter (name, namespace with default, optional context) with context. Adds meaning beyond schema type/name, though could be more detailed (e.g., valid values).

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?

Description clearly states verb 'suggest fixes' and resource 'Ingress issues', with specific output (kubectl commands, annotation corrections). Distinguishes from sibling tools like ako_ingress_diagnose and ako_ingress_check by focusing on actionable fixes.

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?

Implies usage after diagnosis (based on the diagnosed problem) but lacks explicit when-not or alternative tool references. No guidance on when to use this vs ako_ingress_diagnose or ako_ingress_check.

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