panorama_suggest_ipsec_bgp_resources

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that suggestions are scoped rather than global guarantees, that human verification is required, that WAN loopback detection is also returned, and that BGP policy choices requiring human intent are flagged. It also explicitly states no commit or push is performed, aligning with and enriching the read-only annotation.

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 sentences with no filler: the READ-ONLY tag is front-loaded, and each sentence contributes distinct information about the operation, limitations, additional outputs, and lack of commit/push. For a tool with 9 parameters and a somewhat complex role, this is appropriately dense.

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?

With no output schema, the description does name the key return categories: bare tunnel interfaces, /30 near/far pairs, WAN loopback detection, and BGP policy flags. It could go further by describing the response structure or error conditions, but for a suggestion-stage read-only tool the essential agent-facing behavior is covered.

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 broad context about template resolution and scoped collision avoidance, but it does not add specific parameter semantics beyond what the input schema already provides. 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 states a specific verb and resource: it suggests bare tunnel interfaces and /30 near/far pairs after resolving template context and inspecting existing tunnel/BGP link-local state. It also clearly marks itself as read-only and candidate-only, which separates it from apply, validate, commit, and remove siblings.

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 clear context for when to use it: during the pre-commit suggestion stage, where human and merged/effective-config verification is still required. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the read-only candidate-only positioning is enough to route an agent appropriately.

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