get_mac_table

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It notes that entries are 'learned' (implying dynamic entries), but does not disclose read-only nature, required permissions, pagination, or whether static entries are included.

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 single sentence is front-loaded with the resource and contains no redundant or filler language. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 values need not be described. For a simple read tool with one optional parameter, the description covers the essential purpose and filter, though it omits read-only confirmation and any authentication context.

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 that vlan_id acts as an optional VLAN filter, adding semantic meaning beyond the bare schema, but does not provide accepted value formats or ranges for the parameter.

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 the specific resource (learned MAC addresses) and its optional scope filter (VLAN), making the tool's output clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools or state a verb, relying on the name 'get_mac_table' for the action.

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?

It implies usage by stating the optional VLAN filter, but gives no guidance on when to use this versus other inspection tools or when the VLAN filter is appropriate. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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