panorama_detect_ipsec_loopback

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: it says the tool inspects existing IKE gateways and loopback units, it previews the loopback choice, and it explicitly states no commit or push is performed. It also labels the operation as candidate-only, giving the agent a clear mental model of side effects.

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 three tightly written sentences. The read-only marker is front-loaded, the primary action follows immediately, usage guidance and safety guarantees are provided without redundancy, and every sentence adds value.

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 read-only detection tool with rich schema annotations and 100% parameter coverage, the description covers purpose, triggering condition, relation to the next step, behavior, and safety. No critical gap remains for an agent to select 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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents all six parameters. The description does not add parameter-specific guidance for its own parameters, but it does reference 'localInterface/localAddress' from the related planning tool, which helps contextualize when detection is needed. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter documentation weight.

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 ('Auto-detects') and resource ('WAN loopback interface/address an IPsec IKE gateway should reference') and explains the method ('inspecting existing IKE gateways and loopback units'). It also identifies the sibling it feeds into ('panorama_plan_ipsec'), making it easy to distinguish from other tools.

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 gives an explicit usage condition: 'Use before panorama_plan_ipsec when localInterface/localAddress are omitted.' It also clarifies the scope of the result by stating that only candidate configuration is produced and no commit or push is performed, which helps an agent decide when this tool is appropriate.

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