apic_track_endpoint

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes input format and return details, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only. The description is adequate but lacks depth.

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 very concise with five sentences, front-loading the main purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose, parameter format, return details, and use case. No redundant information.

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's simplicity with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides enough context: what input to provide and what the output contains (tenant, application, EPG, etc.). It could mention the return format (e.g., JSON) but is otherwise complete.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates by detailing the parameter mac_or_ip, including acceptable MAC address formats (XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX or XX-XX-XX-XX-XX-XX) and that IP addresses are also accepted. It does not specify IP format (e.g., IPv4 vs IPv6), which would be helpful.

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 action 'track' and the resource 'endpoint', specifying that it can be done by MAC or IP address. It distinguishes from siblings like apic_search_by_ip (which only searches by IP) and apic_get_epg_endpoints (which lists all endpoints in an EPG).

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 says 'Useful for troubleshooting connectivity issues,' which implies a use case but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned.

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