list_vlans

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds a key constraint beyond the schema: 'Limited to 20 results by default' and 'max: 1000' in the Args section. This is useful behavioral context. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, mention any authentication or rate-limit requirements, or describe ordering/pagination behavior beyond the limit. The limit disclosure earns a 3 but is not comprehensive.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-line purpose, a behavioral note, and a parameter list. Every sentence adds value — the limit constraint is important, and the parameter definitions are precise. 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 has only two optional parameters and an output schema exists (so return values need not be described), the description covers purpose, parameters, and the key default limit. It is slightly incomplete because it lacks usage guidance (when to choose this over search_subnets, for example) and does not state whether the list is system-wide or scoped to the authenticated user. These are minor gaps for a simple list tool, but they prevent a 5.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate entirely. It does so clearly: domain_id is explained as 'Optional domain ID to filter VLANs' and limit as 'Maximum number of VLANs to return (default: 20, max: 1000)'. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare integer/string types in the schema, fully disambiguating both parameters.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'List VLANs from phpIPAM.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_sections, list_nameservers, list_vrfs, etc., because it names the exact entity being listed. There is no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or refer to sibling tools such as search_subnets or get_subnet_details. The only usage hint is the purpose itself, which is not enough to route an agent to the right tool when multiple list/search tools exist.

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