access_paths

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds valuable behavioral context by explaining the aggregation logic across paths, the failure-domain labeling to avoid overstating redundancy, and the specific meaning of 'summary.out_of_band_live=false'. This goes well beyond the 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?

The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. The supporting sentences add meaningful detail about path domains and output semantics without any fluff. 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 no output schema, the description provides substantial context about the aggregated view and a specific output field. However, it does not fully enumerate all return fields or the exact structure of the summary, leaving some ambiguity about the complete response shape.

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 'profile' has zero description in the schema, and the tool description does not mention it either. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description fails entirely to explain what 'profile' does or how it affects the results. This is a critical gap for the only input.

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 identifies the tool's function: reporting which independent recovery paths are live for a device. It lists the exact paths (REST API, appliance-SSH, target-SSH, out-of-band power, console-HID) and emphasizes the key distinction of failure domains, making it distinct from sibling tools like ssh_reachable or power_state.

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 provides clear context through 'the lockout view' and explains when redundancy matters, indicating this is for recovery planning when a device is hung or locked. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, only implicitly differentiating it.

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