get_spanning_tree

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool executes the specific command 'show spanning-tree', which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state safety characteristics or prerequisites.

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 a single, concise sentence that provides the purpose and the underlying command, with no superfluous words.

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 simple read-only tool with an output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It lacks explicit guidance on usage context and does not explain the device parameter, leaving some 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?

With only one parameter (device) and 0% schema description coverage, the description does not explain what 'device' refers to. The agent must infer its meaning from the tool's context.

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 the verb 'Show' and the specific resource 'spanning-tree state per VLAN', and even quotes the exact command 'show spanning-tree'. This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools that display other network information.

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 context is clear: this tool is for viewing spanning-tree state per VLAN. While it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, no sibling tool covers spanning-tree, making the intended usage obvious.

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