ensp_verify_vlan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It implies a read-only show command, but says nothing about auth/session requirements, whether the session must already be connected, what happens when the session is invalid, or any side effects. That is a thin disclosure for an unannotated tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the command and the optional filter come first. It is efficient, though arguably too sparse given the tool's two parameters and lack of annotations.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required. However, with no annotations and a required, undocumented session parameter, the description leaves the agent without enough context about invocation requirements or failure behavior.

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 adds meaning for vlan_id (a filter for narrowing results), but says nothing about session_id_or_name, which is the required parameter and central to how the tool is invoked.

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 names a specific action (executing `display vlan`) and the resource (VLAN table), with the filtering behavior stated. This distinguishes it from the verify_interfaces/verify_routes/verify_ospf siblings by resource, though it never explicitly contrasts them.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the other ensp_verify_* siblings, nor any prerequisites (e.g., an established session). Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name and its place in the family.

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