subnet_list

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns specific fields and explains the limit parameter's behavior, including that the response reports `returned`, `limit`, and `truncated` for capped reads. This provides good insight into pagination behavior, though it does not cover auth requirements or error conditions.

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 a single sentence for the main action and two bullet-like lines for parameters. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the purpose. No fluff or 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers the essentials: what is returned, how limit works, and target usage. It could optionally mention sorting or offset for pagination, but the existing details (truncated flag) are sufficient for a filtered list tool.

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?

Both parameters (limit and target) are well-described beyond the schema. The limit parameter's default, max rows, and reporting behavior are explained. The target parameter is described as a Prism Central target name with an instruction to omit for default. This adds significant value over the bare schema (which has no parameter descriptions).

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 clearly states it lists subnets with specific fields (extId, name, type, VLAN, cluster, IP config), and the [READ] prefix indicates a read-only operation. The tool name itself is unambiguous, and it is distinct from sibling tools like subnet_get (single subnet) and subnet_create (write operation).

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 implies usage for listing subnets in a read-only context but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like subnet_get or subnet_list's sibling list tools. No when-not or alternative recommendations are provided.

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