describe_ingress_path

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it declares the tool is read-only and lists the underlying boto3 services, notes that it returns partial results when IAM scope is incomplete, and discloses the optional SSH-based remote-IP trust check. It does not discuss rate limits or detailed auth requirements beyond IAM scope, but the disclosed operational traits are substantive.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and discovery chain, then adds diagnostic questions, failure behavior, and read-only context in tight succession. Every clause adds useful information, and there is no filler.

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 complex, multi-service discovery tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is unusually complete: it covers purpose, scope, diagnostic use cases, read-only safety, IAM-related partial-result behavior, and the SSH-based remote-IP check. The 100% schema coverage handles parameter details, so nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 region, verbose, instance_id, and check_remoteip. The description adds only a high-level hint about forwarded client IP trust, which maps to check_remoteip but does not add syntax or meaning beyond what the schema 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 names a specific verb and resource ('Map an AWS instance's ingress path') and enumerates the full discovery chain (instance → target groups → load balancers → listeners/rules → WebACL → IP sets + rate rules). It also distinguishes the tool from siblings by stating the exact questions it answers, so an agent can tell what it does without opening the 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?

It gives clear context by naming the diagnostic questions it answers ('behind ALB or direct?', 'which WebACL fronts it?', 'is the WAF even attached?'). However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over siblings such as aws_call, waf_rate_rule_set, or web_traffic_summary, so it stops short of full when/when-not/alternatives guidance.

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