lookup_ise_failure_code

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully states the output content ('what it means, the usual cause, and the fix'), but it does not explicitly confirm this is a read-only lookup or describe behavior for unknown or malformed codes.

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 a single front-loaded sentence that names the action, resource, example inputs, and output structure. The list of twelve example codes adds length but is genuinely useful for confirming the expected input domain.

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 one-parameter lookup tool with an output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. The main gap is the absence of routing guidance relative to sibling diagnostic tools, but that does not prevent correct use.

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 schema provides only a bare string parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds a list of example codes and clarifies the parameter is a 'failure or step code', giving the agent a practical expectation. It stops short of specifying exact formatting rules, such as numeric-only values or handling of leading zeros.

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 names a specific verb ('Decode') and a specific resource ('Cisco ISE / RADIUS failure or step code'), and gives concrete example codes. This clearly separates it from sibling tools that check, diagnose, or modify configurations.

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 intended use case—interpreting an ISE/RADIUS code—is implied by the description, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over siblings like diagnose_dot1x or when not to use it. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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