ako_clusters

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

Annotations already mark it read-only and idempotent, and the description adds important behavioral detail beyond that: every context is probed, kubectl must be on PATH, and unreachable clusters cause latency. It also clarifies the AKO Status values ('pod phase or Not deployed') and that Version is returned per context.

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?

Three concise, front-loaded sentences cover purpose, return values, prerequisites, side effects, and routing to sibling tools. No sentence is wasted and the '[READ]' prefix immediately signals the operation type.

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 zero-parameter discovery tool, the description is complete: it explains what is returned, what is required to run it, what behavioral caveat exists, and how to proceed next. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return structures further.

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 tool has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds no param-specific meaning, but none is needed because the input schema is empty and the call requires no arguments.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('every Kubernetes context in the active kubeconfig') and clarifies the output includes AKO deployment status. The 'Start here' phrase and mentions of sibling tools like ako_status define its distinct role among the many AKO-related tools.

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?

It explicitly says to use this tool first to get context names, then pass one to ako_status, ako_logs, or ako_ingress_diagnose. It also gives practical usage conditions: requires kubectl on PATH and warns that unreachable clusters add latency.

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