ako_ingress_fix_suggest

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with '[READ]'. It adds value by specifying that the tool returns kubectl commands or annotation corrections, providing output behavioral context beyond the 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 extremely concise: two sentences plus a structured parameter list. The purpose is front-loaded with '[READ]' and the verb 'suggest fixes'. 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 the presence of an output schema and rich annotations, the description covers the tool's purpose, inputs, and output nature. Minor gap: it doesn't explain prerequisites (e.g., need prior diagnosis) or the format of suggestions, but overall 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but only restates parameter names and defaults without adding meaningful constraints, examples, or relationships. No extra semantics beyond the schema are provided.

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 suggests specific fixes for Ingress issues and returns actionable kubectl commands or annotation corrections. It distinguishes itself from siblings like ako_ingress_diagnose by focusing on providing fixes rather than diagnosis.

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 the tool should be used after diagnosing an issue ('based on the diagnosed problem'), but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like ako_ingress_check or ako_ingress_diagnose. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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