describe_ipc

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral detail beyond them: it explains that each mode changes what is returned (keyword search, full class listing, enum values, or roots) and frames the tool as read-only introspection never touching live state.

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-loaded with the purpose, then a compact enumeration of the four modes, and finally the routing advice. Every sentence earns its place; the mode list is dense but integral to usage.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers the discovery workflow and its handoff to call_ipc. The only gap is the unmentioned `events`/`limit` behavior, which is minor given full schema coverage.

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%, so the schema fully documents all five parameters with examples. The description reinforces the search/class/enum modes but omits two parameters entirely (`limit` and `events`), so it does not add meaning beyond the schema and the baseline 3 applies.

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: exploring Packet Tracer's complete IPC API down to classes, methods, arguments and enums. It also enumerates the four modes (search/class/enum/none), so an agent immediately knows what the tool does and how its shape differs from call_ipc.

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?

Gives clear usage context: 'Use it before call_ipc for anything the dedicated tools do not cover.' This establishes the discovery-before-execution workflow and when this tool applies. It stops short of naming specific alternative tools or stating exclusions for covered operations, so it falls just under the top band.

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