get_lan

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates this is a read operation, and the description merely restates that it 'gets details.' No additional behavioral context (e.g., authentication requirements, rate limits, or scoping constraints) is provided beyond the annotation.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. While it is very brief, it is not padded and clearly states the core purpose.

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 read operation with well-documented parameters, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context about the relationship to datacenter_id and does not clarify what 'details' includes, which could be important given no output schema. The presence of sibling tools adds ambiguity that the description does not resolve.

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 100% (all three parameters have descriptions), so the schema already documents the parameters. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, which aligns with the baseline for high coverage.

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 'Get details of a specific LAN' uses a clear verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from list_lans by indicating a single item ('a specific LAN'). However, it does not explicitly mention that the LAN is scoped by datacenter_id, which is a required parameter.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_lans or list_lan_nics. The description does not offer any context for selection, but it is not misleading either.

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