get_mac_address_table

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

No annotations provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. 'Show' implies a read-only operation and the command 'show mac address-table' clarifies the exact action, but it does not disclose permissions, failure behavior, or any 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?

Single sentence with no unnecessary wording; correctly front-loaded with the action and includes the useful underlying command in parentheses.

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?

While this is a simple one-parameter tool and an output schema exists, the description omits mention of the device parameter and any prerequisites or context. It is minimally sufficient but has clear gaps.

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 has 0% description coverage and the tool description does not mention the 'device' parameter, providing no additional meaning beyond its type and name. The description could clarify that the table is fetched for the specified device.

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 uses specific verb 'Show' and resource 'MAC address table', and includes the exact CLI command, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_arp_table and get_routing_table.

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 vs alternatives; it only states the command. The use case is implied by the tool name and sibling context, but no exclusions or alternative pointers are given.

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