show_lan

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'read-only', which communicates the key safety trait of no side effects. However, it offers no other behavioral context such as output format, whether the DHCP pool is conditionally shown, or how it handles multiple VLANs—though for a simple show command this is a reasonable baseline.

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, tightly scoped sentence that front-loads the resource type and immediately enumerates the returned fields. There is zero fluff; every word contributes to the agent's understanding.

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 simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential information: what is shown and that it is safe. It could be more complete by clarifying the exact structure of the output or VLAN selection, but for a read-only status show, it is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

This tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter behavior, and the empty input schema confirms there is no ambiguity.

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 identifies the resource (LAN/VLAN interfaces) and lists the specific fields displayed (IP, mask, DHCP pool, gateway), with an explicit read-only qualifier. While it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like vlan_status or ip_addr, the scope is specific enough for an agent to understand what this tool returns.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many sibling status/read tools. The read-only qualifier implies a monitoring use case, but there are no explicit conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the selection decision to the agent.

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