get_trunks

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

No annotations are present, so the description must convey behavior; it does by stating 'Show' and the exact command, which implies read-only network inspection. However, it does not disclose any requirements like privileged exec mode or device reachability, relying on the existing output schema for return details.

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?

One concise sentence, front-loaded with the action and target, and the parenthetical command reference adds useful precision without waste.

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 one-parameter show tool with an output schema, the description covers the core behavior and command equivalency. It lacks usage guidance and parameter detail, but the low complexity keeps it minimally viable.

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 only a required 'device' string with zero description coverage, and the description does not mention this parameter or its expected format. The meaning of 'device' is largely inferable from the schema title, but the description adds no compensation for the missing schema documentation.

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 'trunk interfaces and allowed VLANs', and includes the underlying command 'show interfaces trunk'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_interfaces or get_vlans by focusing specifically on trunk ports.

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 use when trunk interface details and allowed VLANs are needed, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as get_interfaces or get_vlans, nor any exclusions. Sibling names alone do not clarify selection.

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