identify-infrastructure-services

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It frames the tool as read-only analysis ('Analyze traffic flows', 'Builds a graph', 'computes centrality metrics') and describes returned artifacts, but it does not explicitly state that no state is changed, nor cover edge cases such as insufficient flow data or permission requirements.

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?

Three purposeful sentences: the first states the action, the second explains the computation, and the third gives the use case and output. No fluff, and the main verb is front-loaded.

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 and no annotations, the description covers the important ground: purpose, method, return value, and why the result matters. It could add details on how to interpret scores/tiers or prerequisites, but it is not materially incomplete.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all three optional parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but it also doesn't need to; 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?

The description opens with 'Analyze traffic flows to identify infrastructure services', a specific verb+resource pair, then clarifies the method (app-to-app graph, centrality metrics) and output (ranked list with scores, classification tiers, connectivity details). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like get-traffic-flows or get-traffic-flows-summary, which are raw/summary traffic tools.

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 description explicitly grounds usage in a segmentation rollout context: infrastructure services 'should be policy'd first during segmentation rollouts.' This gives clear when-to-use guidance, though it does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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