list_vrfs

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does mention the default limit of 20 results and a maximum of 1000, which is a concrete behavioral aspect. However, it does not state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it explain pagination or what happens when more than 1000 VRFs exist. The information is partial but not misleading.

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 concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes a structured 'Args' section. It uses minimal words while conveying essential details about the limit parameter. No filler or redundant information is present.

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 list tool with one optional parameter, the description covers the core usage. Since an output schema exists, return format is likely handled there. The only minor gap is that it does not mention whether pagination is needed for more than 1000 VRFs, but this is a rare edge case and not critical for typical use.

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. It fully explains the 'limit' parameter: its purpose (maximum number of VRFs), default value (20), and maximum allowed (1000). This is clear and adds meaning beyond the schema, which only provides type and default.

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 'List' and the resource 'VRF instances' from phpIPAM, which is specific and unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like list_vlans or list_sections, though the resource type makes the distinction implicit.

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 simply states its purpose and parameter, with no mention of exclusions, conditions, or alternative tools. The only hint is the tool name itself, but no explicit routing is offered.

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