bridge_hosts

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral traits. It indicates a read operation (listing learned MACs) but doesn't disclose potential side effects, performance considerations, or data freshness. The description is minimally adequate but lacks depth.

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 sentence, highly concise. However, it is in Indonesian, which may hinder readability for non-Indonesian speakers. The structure is simple and front-loaded, but could benefit from an English equivalent or title.

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 parameterless tool, the description gives the general idea (retrieving bridge host MAC table). However, it doesn't specify the exact output fields or structure, which would help an agent interpret the result. It is adequate but not thorough.

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 tool has no parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (trivially). The description confirms no input is needed, which is useful. It adds no extra parameter information because none exists, but it correctly implies the tool is a simple list operation.

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 tool provides a table of host bridge entries (MAC addresses learned per bridge port). This is a specific verb-resource pairing and distinguishes it from siblings like bridge_ports, which likely show port configurations rather than learned MACs.

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, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. An agent would have no context about when to choose bridge_hosts over bridge_ports or other network inspection tools.

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