Device Fdb

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining that entries carry the learned port_id and that this is a device-wide perspective of switch connectivity, which is valuable beyond the 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?

Two sentences accomplish everything: the first states the action and object, the second explains the key output detail and perspective. No filler or repetition of schema information appears.

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?

The tool is simple, annotations cover safety, the schema fully documents parameters, and an output schema exists, so the description does not need to explain return values. The only notable gap is lack of explicit routing to sibling tools, but this does not prevent correct 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters hostname, limit, and offset are already fully documented. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics, but it also does not need to because the schema carries that burden.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('forwarding database (learned MAC addresses)') for a device, making the primary purpose clear. It adds 'device-wide view of what is plugged into a switch,' which hints at a distinction from per-port or lookup siblings, though it does not explicitly name them.

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 need the device-wide FDB view, and it characterizes the result as learned MACs with port_id. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to choose this over sibling tools like fdb_lookup or port_fdb, and it does not state exclusions or alternatives.

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