ako_logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, which cover safety. The description adds that logs are for debugging specific issues, providing context beyond annotations. No 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: a one-line summary with a [READ] tag, a brief usage tip, and a clear parameter list. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 (not shown) and comprehensive annotations, the description provides complete context for a log-viewing tool. It covers when to use, parameter details, and a usage tip, leaving no obvious gaps.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the tool description fully explains both parameters: 'tail' as 'Number of log lines to show (default 100)' and 'since' as 'Time filter, e.g. ''30m'', ''1h''.' This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's default 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'View AKO pod logs to debug Ingress creation failures, sync errors, or AVI Controller connectivity issues.' It uses a specific verb ('View') and specifies the resource ('AKO pod logs'), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like ako_ingress_check or ako_status.

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 advises using 'since' to narrow the time window, providing clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives, though sibling tools cover other diagnosis tasks.

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