device_fdb

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the returned data (each entry includes port_id) and the device-wide scope, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits like pagination behavior or ordering, though limit/offset are in 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 two concise sentences: the first states the core action, and the second adds valuable context about what the results represent. There is no fluff or redundant information.

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 and has a rich output schema, so the description only needs to convey the purpose and scope. It successfully does that with the 'device-wide view' clarification, and the annotations cover safety concerns, making the description complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all three parameters, so the schema carries the parameter meaning. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 the tool lists the forwarding database (learned MAC addresses) for a device, with a specific verb and resource. It further distinguishes itself as the 'device-wide view' of what is plugged into a switch, which differentiates it from port-level or lookup-focused siblings like port_fdb and fdb_lookup.

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 provides clear context: this is for viewing all learned MAC addresses on a single device, as opposed to port-specific views. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'device-wide view' phrasing gives a solid indication of when to use it.

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