panorama_preflight_template_network

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces them with a leading '[READ-ONLY]' marker. Beyond the annotations, it adds genuinely useful context: the specific validation checks performed and the explicit 'does not commit or push' qualifier, which clarifies this step has no side effects even though it sits in a workflow whose siblings do commit and push.

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?

Two tight sentences with the safety qualifier front-loaded, followed by the workflow trigger, the check inventory, and the side-effect guarantee. Every clause earns its place; there is no repetition of schema content or annotation data beyond the necessary '[READ-ONLY]' safety marker.

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 6-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage, a safety profile carried by annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the critical invocation knowledge: when to call, what it verifies, and that it is side-effect free. The only minor gap is that it does not hint at the shape of the result (e.g., pass/fail status or an issue report), which an agent might want when deciding how to consume the preflight outcome.

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 schema already documents all six parameters thoroughly, including serial auto-resolution, the deployment ownership boundary, and the virtualRouter fallback. The description's mention of 'managed serial/template/vsys/vr_root' loosely maps to parameters but adds no semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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 names a specific verb ('Validates'), a resource ('deployment context'), and a precise workflow position ('before IPsec or BGP planning'). It enumerates exactly what is checked — Panorama endpoint, serial/template/vsys/vr_root, Legacy Virtual Router mode, PAN-OS 11.1.x compatibility — which is enough to distinguish it from sibling planning, validation, apply, and commit tools without opening any schema.

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?

'Before IPsec or BGP planning' gives clear contextual positioning relative to the planning siblings (panorama_plan_ipsec, panorama_plan_bgp), and 'Candidate only; does not commit or push' tells the agent it is a safe early gate rather than a terminal operation. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, so it falls short of a 5.

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