ako_version

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description adds meaningful context beyond them: the version source is the pod's image tag, and the edge case that 'latest' is reported literally rather than resolved to a numeric version. This gives the agent an accurate mental model of the tool's behavior.

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 tight and front-loaded: the action and source appear in the first line, followed by output shape, use cases, and a critical caveat. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant elaboration.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description covers the essential non-schema context: what the version is derived from, the returned fields, the use-before-config workflows, and the 'latest' ambiguity. For a simple read-only tool with one optional parameter, nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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 sole parameter, context, is fully documented in the schema as the optional K8s context name (100% coverage). With coverage that high, the description does not need to add parameter detail, and it does not meaningfully enrich the parameter's semantics beyond the 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?

Description leads with a specific verb and resource: '[READ] AKO version running in a cluster, read from the pod's image tag.' It clearly defines the output (pod name and Image/Version pair per container) and distinguishes the tool from siblings by framing it as a foundational compatibility check referenced by ako_config_diff and ako_config_upgrade.

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 when to use: to check Controller compatibility and before running ako_config_diff or ako_config_upgrade so both target the installed chart. It gives concrete usage triggers but does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name a direct alternative for version queries.

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