list_lans

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

The annotation `readOnlyHint: true` establishes safety, and the description's 'list' aligns. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotation—no mention of filtering behavior, depth, or result size. Given annotations, the bar is lower, but there is no extra disclosure to elevate the score.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the core purpose with zero filler. Every word earns its place; it is concise and immediately understandable.

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 list operation with a single required parameter and no output schema, the description adequately conveys scope. The schema covers parameter nuances (filters, depth), so the description does not need to repeat them. It omits any pagination or response-format hints, but that is not critical for a simple read-only list.

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%, so each parameter is already documented (e.g., filters, depth, datacenter_id). The description contributes no parameter-specific meaning; it rests fully on the schema, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 'List all LANs in a data center' clearly identifies the action (list), resource (LANs), and scope (per data center). It distinguishes from siblings like `get_lan` (single) and `list_lan_nics` (NICs, not LANs).

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 description implies usage via the required datacenter_id but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like `get_lan` or `list_lan_nics`. It lacks exclusionary or alternative guidance, though the name and context make the primary use case obvious.

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