listSwitchNetworks

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

The readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations already establish the safe read-only behavior. Beyond that, the description adds useful output context by saying the result shows which VLANs are assigned to which ports, including tagged and untagged configurations. It does not discuss pagination or default-site behavior, but those are covered by the schema.

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 three short sentences with no redundant wording. It front-loads the core purpose and follows with output details and the prerequisite lookup tool.

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 read-only list tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description is largely complete: it states the purpose, summarizes return content, and points to listDevices for the required MAC. It could be slightly stronger by clarifying pagination or how this differs from adjacent switch-detail tools.

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 the schema already documents switchMac, siteId, page, and pageSize in detail. The description only repeats the switchMac guidance already present in the schema and adds no further meaning for the pagination or site parameters. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 a specific verb and resource: listing VLAN network assignments for a switch, and it clarifies the returned content includes port-level tagged and untagged configurations. It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from related switch detail or stack network tools, so it falls short of the top score.

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 clear usage context by explaining that the tool lists VLAN-to-port assignments and that listDevices should be used to obtain switchMac values. It does not name when-not-to-use conditions or alternative tools for overlapping switch information, but the primary prerequisite is clear.

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