List Vrfs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's job is to add context. It explains pagination mechanics (auto-truncation, next_offset), response format options (markdown default vs json shape), and that large lists auto-truncate. No contradiction with annotations.

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 well-organized into sections (common patterns, pagination, filters, returns). Each sentence is purposeful, no redundancy. The use of bullet points and clear headings makes it easy to scan without wasted words.

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 annotations (read-only, idempotent), schema (73% covered), and no output schema, the description covers all key behavioral aspects: how to paginate, what filters are available, and the response shape. It also directs the agent to netbox_get_vrf for single-item lookup, making the tool's role in a workflow clear. The only minor gap is that optionality of all parameters is implicit, but 'Common patterns' strongly implies it.

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 coverage is 73% (8/11 params have descriptions), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by grouping filters into 'Resource-specific' and 'Universal' and provides brief clarifications for 'rd' and the date filters. However, 'enforce_unique' and 'tenant_id' lack explanation, and 'name' is left blank. Still, the grouping and pagination details elevate it above baseline.

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 'VRFs (routing tables) from NetBox'. It distinguishes from the sibling tool netbox_get_vrf by advising to use that 'when you already have an id', and provides typical usage patterns (discovery, lookup, narrow scan).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: for discovery (no filters), lookup by ID (delegate to get_vrf), and narrow scanning (combine q with filters). It also documents pagination details with limit/offset and the auto-truncation behavior, which helps the agent decide how to iterate.

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