access_paths

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds real interpretive value beyond that: how domains are labeled, why several live paths on one appliance count as ONE domain, and what summary.out_of_band_live=false implies. It doesn't cover auth or rate limits, so not a 5.

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?

Front-loads the core answer ('Which INDEPENDENT recovery paths are live') before elaborating. The domain and out_of_band_live sentences each carry weight, though the backtick-heavy, densely packed style is slightly harder to scan than necessary.

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 read-only analysis tool with no output schema, the description conveys what the result means (domain-labeled live paths, the out_of_band_live signal). It is complete enough to interpret the call, missing only explicit return-shape detail.

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?

Only one parameter (profile) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents it. The description adds nothing about the profile parameter, which is acceptable given the schema does the heavy lifting — baseline 3.

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+resource (which live recovery paths exist for a device) and frames it as 'the lockout view'. The failure-domain framing clearly differentiates it from sibling reachability checks like ssh_reachable or healthcheck, which report a single path rather than an independence rollup.

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 'lockout view' phrasing implies the context (assessing whether a hung box can still be recovered remotely), but no sibling is named and there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-to-use-alternative guidance. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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