getStackNetworkList

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a small amount of behavioral context by noting the result covers VLAN interface assignments across all stack members, but says nothing about result size, pagination behavior, or whether empty stacks return an error.

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?

Three short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the prerequisite hint immediately after. The stackId sentence largely duplicates the schema description, which is a minor redundancy rather than clutter.

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?

For a simple read-only list tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the definition covers what is being fetched and how to obtain the required ID. A brief note on pagination or what an empty stack returns would close the remaining gap, but nothing essential is missing.

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 all four parameters, including siteId fallback and page/pageSize limits, are already documented. The description's only parameter-adjacent content is the stackId discovery hint, which the schema itself repeats, so it adds no meaning beyond the structured fields.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Get the VLAN network list') and scopes it to a switch stack, with a follow-on sentence clarifying that results span all stack members. It is clear enough to separate from getSwitchStackDetail, though it never explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling listSwitchNetworks, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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?

It gives a concrete prerequisite path: 'Use getSwitchStackDetail to get the stackId.' That tells an agent how to obtain the required parameter. It stops short of stating when to prefer this over listSwitchNetworks or other switch-network tools, so there is no exclusion guidance.

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