get_network_instances

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the safety profile, and the "[READ]" tag redundantly repeats it. The description does add value by listing the returned attributes (name, type, state, member interfaces), which matters because there is no output schema. It says nothing about error behavior, empty results, or pagination.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and returned fields, then a compact single-argument block. No wasted prose. The "[READ]" prefix and the Args header are mildly redundant against structured fields but not excessive.

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 single-param read tool with no output schema, listing the return fields is genuinely helpful and mostly sufficient. Missing is the behavior of the optional default target (local device vs. required input), which an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 must carry the parameter burden: "target: Device name from config" meaningfully explains the otherwise opaque "Target" property. However, the parameter is optional (default null) and the description never states what happens when it is omitted, leaving a real gap.

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?

States a specific resource with a clear read verb marker: "[READ] Network instances (VRFs)" and enumerates returned fields (name, type, state, member interfaces). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_vlans or get_interfaces by resource. It stops short of naming any sibling it replaces or contrasts with, so no explicit differentiation.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The only hint is the "[READ]" tag, which merely restates the readOnly annotation. An agent gets no condition for preferring this over, say, get_interfaces or get_vlans.

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