ako_ingress_map

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that it's a [READ] operation and specifies the mapping purpose, which aligns with annotations and provides additional behavioral context without contradiction.

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 lines of purpose and a single line for the argument. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource, with no unnecessary information.

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?

The tool has only one optional parameter, a well-annotated safety profile, and an output schema (not shown but present). The description provides everything needed to understand the tool's purpose and usage, and the output is presumably documented in the output schema.

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 only parameter 'context' has 0% schema_description_coverage. The description compensates by explicitly stating 'K8s context name (optional)', which adds essential meaning beyond the bare schema definition.

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 it 'Show mapping between K8s Ingress resources and AVI Virtual Services' and further specifies the purpose as verifying which Ingresses have corresponding VS objects. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ako_ingress_check (which likely checks for issues) and ako_ingress_diagnose.

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 explicitly states 'Use to verify which Ingresses have corresponding VS objects', providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not mention when not to use it or offer explicit alternatives among the sibling tools.

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