describe_ingress_path

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states the tool is read-only (boto3 elbv2/wafv2/ec2 Describe), warns that partial results may be returned with incomplete IAM scope, and discloses the default SSH behavior for check_remoteip. This is rich behavioral context beyond what the schema provides.

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 efficiently structured with no fluff. The first sentence states the core purpose and flow, the second answers the practical questions, the third notes failure behavior, and the fourth confirms read-only. Each sentence earns its place and is front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 tool's complexity (multi-hop AWS resource mapping), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is exceptionally complete. It explains the full scope, read-only nature, partial results under IAM restrictions, and parameter behavior (verbose/check_remoteip) sufficiently for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema for parameters; it mentions mod_remoteip/real_ip and verbose behavior, but these are already covered in the schema parameter descriptions. No additional semantic value is provided.

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 'Map' with a clear resource 'AWS instance's ingress path' and details the full chain (instance → target group → load balancer → listeners → WebACL → IP sets). It explicitly answers key questions like 'behind ALB or direct?' and distinguishes itself from sibling AWS tools by focusing on the complete ingress path.

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 implies when to use the tool by stating it answers specific ingress-path questions and notes that partial results are returned when IAM scope is incomplete. It lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select this tool over others when needing this particular mapping.

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