ako_sync_diff

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the heuristic shard-mode matching, the need to confirm 'Missing' results, and the output shape (Type, namespace/name, Status). No contradiction with annotations.

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 dense sentences: purpose first, return value second, usage and caveat third. No filler or repeated schema information. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with one optional parameter, strong annotations, an output schema, and explicit sibling context, this description fully equips an agent to select and invoke it correctly, including a critical heuristic-matching caveat.

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 100% for the single optional context parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description does not elaborate on the parameter, but it does not need to because the schema already provides a clear description and default.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'List Ingresses with no matching Virtual Service or pool on the Controller.' This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools ako_sync_status and ako_sync_force by focusing on diff detection.

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 says when to use it ('Use when ako_sync_status reports a mismatch'), names the reconciliatory alternative (ako_sync_force), and directs confirmation of shard-mode results via pool_list. This gives an agent unambiguous routing criteria.

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