ako_version

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the tool shows specific version details (AKO version, Helm chart, image tag), confirming its read-only nature. No additional behavioral traits are mentioned, which is sufficient for a simple query tool.

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 sentences plus an args note. It front-loads the purpose with '[READ]' and specifies the exact information shown. No redundant 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 and parameter. Since an output schema exists (though not shown), the description doesn't need to detail return values. It could mention that the output includes version strings, but the context is sufficient.

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' is described as 'K8s context name (optional)' in the description, adding meaning beyond the schema's title 'Context'. With 0% schema coverage, this description compensates well, though it could include format hints.

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: 'Show AKO version, Helm chart version, and container image tag.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on version information, while siblings cover status, overview, etc.

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 a specific use case: 'Use to verify AKO version compatibility with AVI Controller.' It does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternatives, but the context of sibling tools makes the usage clear.

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