create_service_icmp

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly explains that this tool creates an ICMP service, defines all parameters with ranges, and specifies the return format (dict with status, name, message). It does not disclose potential side effects or permissions, but for a simple create operation, this is adequate. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Description is concise and well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns, Example). The first sentence immediately states the purpose. No unnecessary words. Suitable length for the tool's complexity.

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 parameter count (5) and lack of annotations, the description covers inputs, outputs, and provides an example. The output schema exists but description still explains return fields. This is complete for an AI agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. Each parameter is described: adom as 'ADOM name', name as 'Service object name', icmp_type with range '0-255, optional for all types', icmp_code with range '0-255, optional', and comment as 'Optional comment'. The example adds practical context (icmp_type=8 for ping). This fully explains parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states 'Create an ICMP service object' with a specific verb and resource. The example (ping with ICMP type 8) further clarifies. This distinguishes from siblings like create_service_tcp_udp and create_service_group, which are for other service types.

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 implies usage for ICMP service objects but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like create_service_tcp_udp. No 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance is provided. Sibling tools exist for TCP/UDP and service groups, but no comparison is made.

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