Device Nac

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context: it shows authenticated endpoints per port, includes authentication method, and notes that VLAN assignment is shown only 'where the device reports it'—a meaningful caveat about data availability. No contradiction with 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 concise sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the follow-up sentence adds relevant output details. Every word contributes to understanding.

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 operation with an output schema and well-documented parameters, the description covers what the tool returns and its device scope. It could have explicitly referenced a sibling like nac_list for broader context, 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 coverage is 100%, with all three parameters (hostname, limit, offset) having descriptions. The tool description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond stating the device scope and output contents, so the baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List network access control (802.1X / MAB) sessions on a device.' It clearly scopes to a single device, distinguishing it from the sibling tool nac_list which likely covers sessions across multiple devices. The added detail about authenticated endpoints, authentication method, and VLAN makes the purpose unmistakable.

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 clearly indicates this tool is for listing NAC sessions on a specific device, giving the context of when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as pointing to nac_list for a global view, so it falls short of full exclusion guidance.

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