list_vlans

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the result limit ('Limited to 20 results by default') and the max of 100, which are behavioral traits beyond the schema's default value. However, it does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, ordering, pagination, or return format. The 'CONTEXT OPTIMIZATION' note adds some context but could be more detailed.

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 concise and well-structured. It has a clear one-sentence summary, a context optimization note, and a brief bulleted argument list. Every line earns its place, and there is no unnecessary redundancy.

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 low complexity (simple list tool with two optional parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers the source system, parameter meanings, result limits, and default behavior. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to select and use the tool correctly.

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 explains both parameters: domain_id is described as an optional filter, and limit is described with its default (20) and maximum (100). This adds meaning beyond the raw schema, which has no descriptions and no max constraint.

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 'List VLANs from phpIPAM,' which uses a specific verb ('list') and a specific resource ('VLANs'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that list other resources (e.g., list_vrfs, list_sections, list_locations). The purpose is unambiguous.

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 usage context is implied by the tool name and description: use this when you need to list VLANs. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it instead of alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is minimal but not misleading.

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