run_traceflow

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

Description explains the injection of a synthetic probe packet and the return of operation states (IN_PROGRESS, FINISHED, FAILED) and observations. Annotations confirm non-destructive, consistent with 'WRITE' label. Missing details on authentication or rate limits, but overall transparent.

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?

Structured with a brief introductory paragraph and a clear 'Args' section. Front-loaded with purpose. Could be slightly more concise, but well-organized.

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?

Covers main behavior and parameters, but lacks full explanation of return value format (only mentions operation_state and observations by resource_type). No output schema, so description should detail all relevant result fields. Also missing guidance on handling asynchronous traces.

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 coverage is 0%, so description adds meaning: explains src_lport_id as attachment UUID, protocol options (TCP/UDP/ICMP), and defaults. Some parameters like 'target' lack explanation. Good but not exhaustive.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Run' and resource 'Traceflow' to trace a packet's path through NSX overlay. It distinguishes from sibling 'get_traceflow_result' by indicating it initiates the trace and returns observations, while the sibling likely retrieves stored 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Does not mention that results may be asynchronous or that 'get_traceflow_result' should be used to poll final results.

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