get_mac_address_table

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

No annotations exist, so the description bears the full burden. It labels the tool as [READ] indicating non-destructive behavior, and lists the returned fields, but lacks details on authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects.

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 concise with a front-loaded [READ] tag and a brief sentence on output, followed by parameter documentation. Each sentence earns its place, though more structured formatting could improve scanability.

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 table retrieval without output schema, the description lists the expected fields (MAC, interface, VLAN, flags), which is sufficient. It could mention that the output is a list or clarify the meaning of 'static/active flags', but overall it provides a solid overview.

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 must compensate. It explains 'target' as 'Device name from config', adding minimal context beyond the schema. This is adequate but not rich; the parameter's purpose is clear but could specify format or required privileges.

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 explicitly states it is a READ operation on the MAC address table, listing MAC, interface, VLAN, and static/active flags. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_arp_table (ARP table) and get_vlans (VLAN info).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. It only states the parameter, leaving the agent to infer usage from context.

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