trace_connection

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that this aggregates across four distinct source families (ISE identity, IOS ACLs, PaloAlto sessions, VNet flow logs at both NICs), which tells the agent this is a broad, potentially expensive fan-out query. However, it omits permissions, latency/cost expectations, and what a 'stopped' result looks like.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core verb and scope, then the trigger question, then the sources touched. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return formatting need not be described, and the cross-source scope is well covered. The gap is parameter-level: neither the meaning of dst_port nor the time window implied by since_minutes is explained, which matters for a correlation query whose results depend heavily on the lookback period.

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 0% across four parameters, and the description compensates for none of them. src_ip/dst_ip are inferable from the narrative, but dst_port is never mentioned and since_minutes (default 1440) is entirely absent, so the agent has no guidance on the time window that governs the trace.

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?

States a specific verb ('trace') and resource ('one conversation') with an explicit scope: every log source on the path, reporting where it stopped. The description also implicitly separates it from the single-source siblings (search_flows, search_firewall_sessions) by naming itself as the cross-source correlator.

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?

Gives an unambiguous trigger: 'why can't A reach B' questions. That is a clear when-to-use signal. It stops short of naming a specific alternative tool or stating when NOT to use it (e.g., for bulk traffic ranking you should use traffic_volume), so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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