describe_ingress_path

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

The description explicitly states the tool is read-only ('boto3 elbv2/wafv2/ec2 Describe'), discusses partial results for incomplete IAM scope, and explains the behavior of the 'verbose' parameter. Since no annotations are provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure and does so comprehensively.

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 concise (3 sentences) and front-loaded with the key action: 'Map an AWS instance's ingress path in one call.' It efficiently lists the traversal chain and the questions it answers without extraneous text.

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?

Given the lack of an output schema, the description adequately implies return information by stating the questions it answers and mentioning partial results. However, it could be more explicit about the output format or structure, which slightly limits completeness.

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?

All parameters are documented in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds context beyond schema, such as that 'check_remoteip' defaults to true and involves SSH to detect mod_remoteip/real_ip trust, and that 'verbose' controls whether all listener rules are shown or collapsed. This extra information enhances understanding.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: mapping an AWS instance's ingress path from instance to target groups, load balancers, listeners, WebACL, IP sets, and rate-based rules. It answers specific questions like 'behind ALB or direct?' and 'which WebACL fronts it?', distinguishing it from sibling tools that are generic AWS list or manage operations.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool—when needing to understand ingress routing and WebACL configuration. It mentions partial results due to IAM scope issues, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, though none offer the same functionality.

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