get_egress_destinations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Currently talks to' implies a snapshot, and the categories hint at output content, but the description does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what data source is used, whether permissions are needed, or what the return shape is.

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 extremely concise: two short clauses that state the purpose and the classifications, with no filler or redundant content. The key scoping information 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?

Given the tool has no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain more about what the caller receives and how to choose parameters. It conveys the core idea and classification dimensions, but leaves the return format, parameter relationships, and behavioral expectations unspecified.

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 parameters are already well documented. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 clearly states the resource ('a pod') and the behavior ('where it currently talks to') and adds a useful classification scheme (cluster service/pod, private, PUBLIC INTERNET, cloud metadata). This distinguishes it from generic connectivity tools, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 phrase 'Exfil and unexpected-dependency signal' provides implied usage context for security and dependency investigations. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_outbound_client_metrics or get_open_connections, nor does it describe exclusions.

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