pve_sdn_vnet_mac_vrf

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explicitly labels the tool as 'READ-ONLY' and explains the data provenance (mixed local/wire-learned via BGP). This provides useful behavioral context beyond a simple read hint, though it omits auth or rate limit details.

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?

Two sentences pack purpose, scope, and data nature with no extraneous information. The first sentence front-loads the core action, and the second adds critical transparency. Every sentence earns its place.

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 an output schema exists, return value details are not needed. The description covers purpose, read-only nature, scope (EVPN zone, one node), and data fields. Could be improved by noting the default behavior of the node parameter, but overall it is sufficient for a simple read tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds no additional meaning or context beyond what is in the schema, e.g., clarifying defaults or value formats. 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 it is a read-only operation to get the MAC VRF of a VNet in an EVPN zone on one node, returning ip/mac/nexthop per entry. This distinguishes it from generic vnet tools but does not explicitly compare to siblings like pve_sdn_vnet_get or pve_sdn_zone_ip_vrf.

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 does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The adversarial note is about data source, not usage guidelines.

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