run_traceflow

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true. The description adds behavioral context by stating it is a write operation ('[WRITE]') and that it injects a synthetic probe. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful details about probe injection and result type.

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 well-structured with a one-line summary, an explanatory paragraph, and a clear parameter list. While slightly long due to 9 parameters, every sentence adds value. The structure is front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse.

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 absence of an output schema, the description adequately explains return values ('hop-by-hop observations including DFW rule hits and drop reasons'). However, it does not detail the format or structure of the output. For a tool with moderate complexity, it is mostly complete but could mention that results can later be retrieved via get_traceflow_result.

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 0%, so the description provides essential parameter semantics in the Args section. Each parameter is explained (e.g., src_lport_id: Source logical port ID). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema types and defaults, compensating fully for the lack of schema descriptions.

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: 'Run a Traceflow to trace a packet's path through the NSX overlay.' It specifies that it injects a synthetic probe and returns hop-by-hop observations. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_traceflow_result, which retrieves previously run traceflow results.

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 usage for tracing packet paths in NSX overlay, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. There is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage context inferred rather than explicit.

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