apic_analyze_path

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It lists return values (Contracts, relationships, connectivity status) and explains inputs. However, it does not mention whether the tool is read-only, authentication requirements, or error handling if EPGs are invalid.

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 concise with clear sections for Arguments and Returns. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is appropriately short and front-loaded with the main purpose.

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?

Given the tool has 2 simple parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides sufficient context for basic usage. It explains inputs and expected outputs. However, it could be improved by mentioning prerequisites (e.g., EPG must exist) or typical failure modes.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must add meaning. It defines each parameter ('Source EPG DN or name', 'Destination EPG DN or name'), which clarifies that they expect EPG identifiers. This adds value beyond the schema's basic type and title.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'Analyze network paths between two EPGs.' It specifies the resource (EPGs) and the action (analyze paths). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'apic_analyze_connectivity', which could have similar functionality.

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 includes usage context: 'Useful for troubleshooting connectivity issues and validating security policies.' However, it does not provide guidance on when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools for similar tasks.

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