ako_logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the description adds limited behavioral context beyond the use cases. It does not contradict annotations, but it does not go beyond what annotations provide.

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 very concise, with two short paragraphs: one for purpose and one for parameters. Every sentence adds value, no fluff, and the key information is front-loaded.

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?

For a simple tool with 2 parameters (no required, no enums) and an output schema provided, the description sufficiently covers purpose, use cases, and parameter details. No gaps are apparent.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: 'tail' (number of lines, default 100) and 'since' (time filter with examples like '30m', '1h'). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 is for viewing AKO pod logs to debug specific issues like Ingress failures, sync errors, and connectivity problems. It uses a specific verb 'View' and resource 'AKO pod logs', and the purpose is distinct from sibling tools like ako_status or ako_ingress_check.

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 indicates when to use (debugging scenarios) and provides advice for the 'since' parameter, but it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with alternatives among the 29 sibling tools. Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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