v2_lan_networks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral trait beyond that — 'Flags networks with snooping off' — but says nothing about scoping or return format.

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 terse sentences with the resource and field list front-loaded and the noteworthy flag behavior last; no filler. It leans on fragments, which is efficient but slightly cryptic.

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 listing tool with annotations covering safety, the enumerated returned fields largely substitute for the absent output schema. However the siteId scoping gap leaves an agent unsure how to invoke it correctly.

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 0% and the single siteId parameter is not mentioned at all in the description. With low coverage the description is expected to compensate, and it does not clarify whether siteId is required, what form it takes, or what happens when it is omitted.

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 phrase 'Every VLAN' states the resource and the scope (all of them), and the field enumeration makes clear this is a read/list operation returning network details. It is distinguishable from siblings like v2_vlan_profiles and v2_services, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as v2_vlan_profiles or v2_set_lan_igmp, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The listing intent is only implied by 'Every VLAN'.

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