network_vlans

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

No annotations provided; description carries full burden. It declares the operation is read-only via '[READ]', which is the key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention potential side effects like rate limits or empty results.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences plus two bullet points. The '[READ]' prefix front-loads the action. No unnecessary words.

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 simple read tool with 2 params and no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, and return fields. It lacks error handling or prerequisites, but overall sufficient.

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 essential meaning: 'network_id' is a Meraki network id from another tool ('network_list'), and 'target' is a config name that can be omitted. This clarifies origin and default behavior.

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 starts with '[READ]' and clearly states the tool reads 'Appliance VLANs configured on a network', specifying returned fields (id, subnet, appliance IP). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling write tools like 'update_network_vlan'.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'network_list' or 'switch_ports'. The Args section provides parameter sources but no context about appropriate use cases.

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