switch_get_vlans

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it declares the operation read-only and non-mutating, and discloses a concrete failure mode (NOT_SUPPORTED on firmware without a VLAN page). It stops short of stating authentication requirements, which matters given the switch_login/switch_check_auth siblings.

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?

Three tight, front-loaded sentences that lead with the safety profile and then the failure mode. Minor redundancy between 'Read-only' and 'Does not mutate' costs a point but nothing is wasted otherwise.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema read tool this is nearly complete: purpose, safety profile, and a known error condition are all covered. The only real gap is whether prior authentication is required, which the presence of login/auth siblings makes relevant.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. No parameter syntax or format details are needed here.

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?

States a specific read verb and the exact resource: the 802.1Q VLAN table plus per-port PVIDs. This clearly separates it from siblings such as switch_get_ports, switch_get_port_stats, and switch_get_poe, so an agent can pick it without opening any schema.

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?

Usage is only implied - an agent infers it should call this to inspect VLAN membership and PVIDs. There is no explicit when-to-use, no statement of prerequisites (e.g. whether switch_login is required first), and no routing to alternatives, though the resource is narrow enough that alternatives are unlikely.

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