nac_list

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

The description adds a crucial behavioral quirk: LibreNMS returns a 404 with 'Nac entry does not exist' instead of an empty list. This is valuable context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) and helps the agent correctly interpret responses.

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: the first states the purpose, the second provides an essential note about error behavior. No fluff, front-loaded, every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the simple list operation, full schema coverage, and existing annotations, the description is complete enough. It explains the scope and the critical edge case, and the output schema exists to detail return values.

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 sufficiently documents the parameters (mac, limit, offset). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what is already present, so baseline 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 clearly states the tool lists NAC (802.1X/MAB) sessions across all devices, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from per-device tools like device_nac by explicitly noting the 'across all devices' scope.

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 when to use it (global listing vs. per-device), but there is no explicit exclusion of alternatives or mention of when not to use this tool. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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