ingress_paths

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that: it enumerates exactly which path constructs are gathered and notes that it reports effective WAF mode and allowed DNAT sources, telling the agent what depth of detail to expect.

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 front-loaded with the return scope and then lists the three parameters in compact form with no filler. The enumeration sentence is long but every item earns its place by telling the agent what is covered.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey what comes back, and it does by naming the path categories and the WAF/source detail. For a complex connectivity-inventory tool with three optional filters, this is close to sufficient, missing only hints on result shape or how targets are resolved.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden, and it largely does: target is explained as scoping to one resource (with the resource types listed), port as a frontend-port filter, and include_private as also surfacing internal LB / private App Gateway listeners. It stops short of format details such as whether target takes a name or an ID.

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 first sentence names the resource (ingress paths) and enumerates the exact path categories returned: firewall DNAT with allowed sources, public LB rules, inbound NAT, App Gateway listener->backend routes with effective WAF mode, and NIC-attached public IPs. This is specific enough to distinguish it from narrower siblings like firewall_rules or list_public_exposure, though it never explicitly names those siblings.

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 three parameter lines imply usage (scope to one resource, filter by port, opt into private listeners), but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-to-use-an-alternative guidance, no prerequisites, and no exclusions relative to the many overlapping sibling tools.

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