list_vrfs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, covering safety traits. The description adds no behavioral context beyond stating it lists all VRFs, missing details like ordering, pagination, or any side effects. Minimal additional value.

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 extremely concise (four words) with no wasted text. However, it could slightly improve by adding a hint about usage, making it not perfectly balanced in terms of completeness.

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 zero parameters, annotations, and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks usage guidelines and behavioral transparency. It does not fully compensate for missing context beyond purpose.

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?

No parameters exist, satisfying the baseline score of 4. The description adds no parameter-related information, but none is needed since the input schema is empty and schema coverage is 100%.

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 'Get all VRFs' uses a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'VRFs' in plural, clearly distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'get_vrf' which targets a single VRF. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 usage for retrieving all VRFs but provides no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternatives like 'get_vrf' for specific VRFs. Guidance is only implied by the tool name and description.

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