switch_show_mac_table

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a read-only 'show' operation, but lacks details about output format, potential prerequisites, or any limitations. It is not misleading but is minimal.

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 a single sentence that directly states the tool's function with no extraneous words. This is efficient and immediately scannable, earning full marks for conciseness.

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 simple, single-purpose read command with a clear name and fully documented parameters, the description is adequate. It does not need to explain return values or complex behavior, though mentioning the optional VLAN filter could enhance completeness slightly.

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 both parameters (device_id and vlan) documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond stating 'Show', so it relies on the schema for semantic meaning. 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 uses a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('MAC address table') with a clear scope ('on a switch'), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like switch_show_arp or switch_show_neighbors. The purpose is immediately obvious and unambiguous.

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 usage context (network switch MAC address inspection) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. The name itself aligns with sibling switch show commands, offering clear implied context.

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