get_vlans

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

The description states it is a read operation, implying no side effects. It notes "driver support varies," which hints at potential inconsistencies. However, without annotations, the description could disclose more about authorization needs or return limitations.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, front-loading the read nature. Every word adds value, with no redundancy.

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?

The tool is low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema). The description mentions the returned fields but lacks details on the response structure (e.g., list or object, pagination). Given the minimal info, it is adequate but not fully 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 input schema has one parameter (target) with 0% description coverage. The description adds "Device name from config," providing more context than the schema alone. Yet it remains vague and does not specify allowed values or behavior when null.

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?

The description uses "[READ]" to indicate a read operation and lists the resource (VLANs) with returned fields (id, name, member interfaces). It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_interfaces or get_network_instances by focusing solely on VLANs.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_network_instances or get_interfaces. No context about prerequisites or exclusions is given.

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