panorama_verify_candidate_operation

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 this with a [READ-ONLY] prefix without contradicting anything. It adds meaningful context beyond the annotations by disclosing exactly what is returned (resource identity, XPath, existence, candidate admin/dirtyId/time metadata) and, importantly, what is never returned (configuration XML or key material) — useful security-relevant transparency for an agent.

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 [READ-ONLY] tag and the core action. Every sentence earns its place: what it does, what it returns, and what it deliberately does not return. There is no filler or repetition of schema or annotation content.

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 present, the description carries the burden of describing the return shape and does so adequately (identity, XPath, existence, metadata). It also anchors the workflow context with 'recorded for an apply operation.' It stops short of describing error or edge-case behavior such as what 'existence=false' means or what happens when operation_id is invalid, but for a read-only verification tool this is a minor gap.

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%: firewall, operation_id, and require_dirty all carry their own descriptions, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but none is needed given the schema already documents the conditional requirement for firewall and the dirtyId expectation for require_dirty.

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 and resource: verifies the candidate configuration XPaths recorded for an apply operation. The READ-ONLY marker and the scoped return payload (identity, XPath, existence, metadata) make clear it is not a configuration fetch or a runtime verification, which helps separate it from the validate_* and verify_*_runtime siblings, though it never names them explicitly.

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 phrase 'recorded for an apply operation' implies it is the post-apply verification step in a candidate workflow, but the description never explicitly states when to use it vs. alternatives such as panorama_validate_ipsec_candidate or panorama_verify_ipsec_runtime. An agent would have to infer the workflow position from the name and sibling context rather than from guidance.

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