list_vrfs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the default result limit (20) and max (100), which is useful. However, it omits other behavioral details like ordering or side effects, though the output schema covers return structure.

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: a clear purpose statement, a brief context note, and a formatted args section. Every sentence contributes value and the length is appropriate.

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 simple list tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it lists, the limit behavior, and parameter semantics. It lacks usage guidance, but this is a minor gap for such a straightforward operation.

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 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining 'limit' as the maximum number of VRFs to return, with default and max values. This adds clear meaning beyond the schema's type and default.

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 VRF instances from phpIPAM,' which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling list tools by the unique resource type (VRFs), though it doesn't explicitly compare with 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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool vs. alternatives. Usage is implied by the tool's name and list context, but there are no exclusions or alternative suggestions, making it adequate but not exceptional.

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