ako_logs

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

The annotations already declare the tool as read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world. The description adds context about the content of the logs (AKO pod logs) and their purpose, but does not provide additional behavioral details beyond what annotations convey. Given the strong annotations, the description adequately supports but does not exceed expectations.

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 purpose statement, a brief usage hint for 'since', and a clear list of arguments. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the most important information. No wasted 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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, usage scenarios, and parameter details thoroughly. Although it does not explicitly describe the output format (likely log lines), the presence of an output schema mitigates this gap. The description is sufficient for an AI agent to understand when and how to invoke the tool.

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 fully compensates by explaining each parameter: 'tail' (number of lines, default 100), 'since' (time filter with examples like '30m', '1h'), and 'context' (K8s context, optional). This adds critical meaning that the schema alone lacks.

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 explicitly states '[READ] View AKO pod logs' and specifies three concrete use cases: debugging Ingress creation failures, sync errors, or AVI Controller connectivity issues. This clearly identifies the tool's verb and resource, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like ako_sync_diff 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 provides clear context for when to use the tool by listing specific debugging scenarios. It also gives advice on parameter usage ('Use 'since' to narrow the time window'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, which slightly reduces the score.

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