validate_vlan_map

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions validation and overlap detection but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, how it handles malformed input, or any limitations. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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 concise (4 lines) and front-loaded with the main action. The input format examples are necessary and efficiently presented. Slight room for improvement by trimming some words.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description should explain return values or behavior. It only describes input formats and validation, leaving the agent uninformed about what the tool returns (e.g., overlaps list, boolean status). Incomplete for safe invocation.

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 input schema is minimal (object with additionalProperties), but the description adds significant value by detailing two supported input formats: shorthand and structured. This clarifies the expected structure of the 'vlan_map' parameter beyond the schema.

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 'Validate a simple VLAN map' with the specific action of surfacing overlaps. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'check_overlaps' by focusing on VLAN-specific validation with a constraint of one subnet per VLAN.

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 implies use when you have a VLAN map and need to check for overlaps, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'check_overlaps' or 'ip_in_vlan'. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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