vlan_status

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It clearly states 'read-only', which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention what the output contains, whether it is real-time, or any other side effects or limitations. For a simple status read, this is minimal but acceptable.

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 extremely concise, consisting of a single phrase. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and read-only nature. While it is not verbose, it could benefit from a brief expansion to include what the status reveals, but for a no-param read-only tool, this brevity is acceptable.

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), the description is minimally sufficient. It tells the agent that it is a read-only VLAN status query. However, it lacks any detail about the return format or what specific VLAN information is provided, which could be relevant for an agent deciding if this tool meets its needs. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema reflects this with an empty properties object (100% coverage). Since there are no parameters, the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. A score of 4 is appropriate for the zero-parameter baseline.

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 states 'VLAN status' which clearly identifies the resource and the operation (status query). The 'read-only' qualifier adds specificity. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like vlan_group or other status tools, though the name itself is self-explanatory.

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 alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or comparisons to other status tools like port_status or show_status. The usage context is only implied by the name.

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