vnisGetFabricVniMember

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read operation, but the description doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the response contains. For a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity (5 parameters, 3 required), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't help an agent understand what a 'VNI member' is, how it relates to fabrics and VNIs, what data is returned, or any operational constraints. For a read operation in a network configuration context, more context is needed.

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 all parameters are documented in the input schema. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain relationships between fabricId, vniId, and memberId). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the action ('Get') and the resource ('a specific VNI member'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'vnisGetFabricVni' or 'vnisGetFabricVniMembers', which appear to retrieve related but different resources.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'vnisGetFabricVni' (gets VNI) and 'vnisGetFabricVniMembers' (gets all members), an agent wouldn't know whether to use this for a single member or if the other tools are more appropriate for broader queries.

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