get_network_instances

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

The [READ] tag indicates read-only behavior, and description lists returned fields. However, with no annotations, it lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or side effects. Adequate for a simple read tool but not comprehensive.

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: one line for purpose and one for parameter. Front-loaded with [READ] tag. No unnecessary words, every part adds value.

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?

Without output schema, description lists returned fields, which is sufficient for a simple read tool. Missing behavioral details but given its simplicity, it's mostly complete.

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?

The description explains the single parameter 'target' as 'Device name from config', adding meaning beyond the schema (which only defines type and default). Schema coverage is 0%, so description compensates well.

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 it reads network instances (VRFs) and lists returned fields (name, type, state, member interfaces). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on VRF-specific data, but could be more explicit about what 'member interfaces' means.

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 like get_interfaces or get_bgp_neighbors. Only specifies the 'target' parameter as device name but no context on prerequisites or scenarios.

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