get_ipfix

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds practical behavioral context beyond annotations: pagination is cursor-based, first call omits cursor, limit defaults to 50 with max 200, and local_prefixes behaves differently based on site presence. This is useful but doesn't cover every edge case like error handling or rate limits.

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 well-organized: a one-line purpose followed by a structured Args list. It is concise without redundancy, and each sentence adds value (operation modes, param requirements, pagination defaults). Minor repetition between description text and schema descriptions is acceptable given the need for self-contained tool docs.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters and an output schema, but the description is complete enough on its own: it explains every operation's parameter requirements, pagination behavior, and the effect of site on local_prefixes. Since an output schema exists, return-value documentation is not needed. The context provided fully covers the tool's usage surface.

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%, with every parameter described in the input schema. The description's Args section largely duplicates those schema descriptions (operation, site, element, cursor, limit) without adding new meaning. While it groups operations and their requirements clearly, that information is already in the operation enum description. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a clear, specific verb 'Inspect' and names the resource 'IPFIX/flow-export configuration' along with its subcomponents (collectors, filters, templates, prefixes). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_routing or get_interfaces, which focus on different network domains.

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 provides detailed operation-specific usage instructions, explaining which parameters are required or optional for each operation (e.g., 'config' requires site + element, 'local_prefixes' takes optional site). It references find_site and find_element for resolution, but does not explicitly compare against alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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