ako_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds behavioral specifics: what status fields are checked (running, restarts, age, ready state) and that context is optional. No contradictions.

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 concise (3 lines) with a clear header, usage line, and args section. No unnecessary words; front-loads the 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?

For a simple tool with one optional param, annotations cover safety, output schema exists, and the description provides enough context (tool purpose, when to use, what it returns) for correct invocation.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, but the description explains the single parameter ('K8s context name (optional, uses current context)'), adding meaning beyond the type-only 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 verb (Check) and resource (AKO pod status) with specific details (running, restarts, age, ready state). It distinguishes from siblings like ako_amko_status and ako_ingress_check by being the first step in troubleshooting.

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?

Explicitly states it's the 'First step when troubleshooting Ingress or LoadBalancer issues in Tanzu/K8s', giving clear usage context. Lacks explicit exclusions or alternative tools, but the guidance is strong.

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