vrfsGetFabricVrfs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It states it's a read operation ('Get'), implying it's likely non-destructive, but doesn't clarify permissions, rate limits, response format, or pagination. For a tool with three parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('Get the list of VRFs'), making it immediately understandable. Every word earns its place, and there's no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool's complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficiently complete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., response structure, error handling), usage context, and how to interpret results. While the schema covers parameters, the overall context for effective tool invocation is poorly supported.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the input schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain VRF concepts or how parameters interact). Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 resource ('list of VRFs'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'vrfsGetFabricVrf' (singular) by specifying 'list of VRFs' (plural), indicating it retrieves multiple items rather than a single one. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools like 'vnisGetFabricVnis' beyond the resource type.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a fabricId), compare it to similar tools like 'vrfsGetFabricVrf' for single VRF retrieval, or indicate any contextual constraints. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and parameters.

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