apic_get_vrfs

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

No annotations provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It correctly indicates a read-only retrieval without side effects, but omits potential pagination, error handling, or permission requirements. For a simple list operation, it is adequate.

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 brief and front-loaded with the main action. It lists returned fields in a clear sentence. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points), but remains efficient and scannable.

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 no output schema, the description covers the key return fields (tenant, name, description, policy control settings). It lacks details on pagination, error responses, or rate limits, but for a straightforward retrieval tool, it is reasonably complete.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description fully explains the tenant parameter with its default and behavior. This adds essential meaning beyond the schema's type definition.

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 starts with 'Retrieve VRFs (Virtual Routing and Forwarding instances) from APIC', clearly stating the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like ndfc_get_vrfs and other apic_* tools by specifying the APIC context.

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?

Guidance on the tenant filter is explicit: 'Optional tenant name filter. If not specified, returns VRFs from all tenants.' However, it does not mention when to use this tool over similar tools from other platforms (e.g., ndfc_get_vrfs), though the APIC prefix implies the scope.

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