Nac List

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

Annotations already establish that this is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description adds valuable non-obvious behavior: the 404 and 'Nac entry does not exist' response instead of an empty list. This is exactly the kind of edge-case disclosure that helps an agent handle failures correctly.

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 very concise: one sentence declares the tool's function and scope, and a second sentence provides a critical behavioral warning. No filler or redundant restatement of the schema exists.

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?

With an output schema present and fully described parameters, the description covers the main contextual gap—the unusual 404 behavior on no matches. It lacks explicit alternative tool routing, but for the tool itself it is sufficiently complete.

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%, and the schema itself clearly documents all three parameters (mac, limit, offset) with defaults and constraints. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('List'), a clear resource ('network access control (802.1X / MAB) sessions'), and a precise scope ('across all devices'). This makes the tool's core purpose immediately understandable, though it does not explicitly name or distinguish itself from sibling tools like device_nac.

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 phrase 'across all devices' implies a global listing use case, which weakly suggests that a per-device alternative like device_nac would be used instead. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings or when not to use it.

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