panorama_verify_ipsec_runtime

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the [READ-ONLY] prefix is redundant. However, the description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the tool only checks runtime state on the firewall, requires a prior manual commit/push, and never mutates configuration. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 compact sentences, each earning its place: what it does, the precondition, and what it does not do. The [READ-ONLY] prefix slightly duplicates the readOnlyHint annotation, which is minor waste, but the functional information is front-loaded and efficient overall.

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 verification tool with 7 well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, precondition, and safety posture. It doesn't describe what the response contains (e.g., per-tunnel SA status or missing tunnels), but the absence of an output schema makes that a minor gap rather than a critical one.

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%, and the schema itself is highly descriptive (e.g., serial auto-resolution, deployment ownership boundary, virtualRouter fallback behavior). The description adds minimal parameter-level meaning beyond mentioning 'by serial,' but with full coverage the schema already does the heavy lifting, so 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 uses a specific verb ('Verifies'), a precise resource ('IPsec runtime state (IKE/IPsec SAs)'), and a clear scope ('on the managed firewall by serial through Panorama'). It distinguishes itself from sibling verify/validate/plan tools by explicitly contrasting runtime verification with candidate configuration, so an agent can tell it apart from panorama_verify_candidate_operation or panorama_validate_ipsec_candidate.

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 a clear precondition ('requires a prior manual commit and push to the managed firewall') and states what the tool does not do ('no commit or push is performed'), establishing that this is for post-commit runtime checking. It doesn't explicitly name alternative sibling tools for candidate verification, but the usage context is unambiguous enough to route an agent correctly.

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