pve_sdn_zone_ip_vrf

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explicitly states READ-ONLY and warns about adversarial nature of nexthops (peer-announced, controlled by compromised peers). This adds valuable safety context, though it could mention additional behaviors like potential staleness or failure modes.

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 two sentences, front-loading purpose and then adding critical adversarial warning. No redundant or unnecessary words. Highly concise and efficient.

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 that an output schema exists (fields not shown, but description lists CIDR, nexthops, protocol) and no annotations, the description provides adequate context for a read-only diagnostic tool. It covers the return fields and behavioral risks, though it omits prerequisites or error scenarios.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for the three parameters (node, zone, proximo_target).

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 IP VRF routing table of an EVPN zone on one node, specifying the exact fields (CIDR, nexthops, protocol). It uses specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling SDN zone tools.

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 indicates it is READ-ONLY, implying appropriate use for diagnostics without side effects. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like pve_sdn_zone_status_list or pve_sdn_fabric_status_routes. No when-not or alternative tools are mentioned.

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