v2_vlan_profiles

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context about what the output contains (decoded profile names plus per-port assignment), but says nothing about pagination, scoping by site, or error behavior.

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, front-loaded with the resource and the returned data, then a short rationale sentence. Only the parenthetical '("All"/"Disable"/custom profiles)' borders on redundant, but it usefully pre-names the profile values an agent will see.

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-parameter read tool with no output schema, describing the return contents is valuable and partially done here. The remaining gap is the undocumented siteId scope, which leaves the agent unsure how to invoke the tool correctly against a specific site.

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 description never mentions the single siteId parameter — not what it scopes, not whether it is optional, not the format. With one undocumented parameter, the description does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 names a specific resource (switch VLAN port profiles) and states it returns both the decoded profile definitions and each port's current profile. It is clearly a read/inspection tool, distinguishing it from the mutation siblings like v2_set_port_profile, though it never names that counterpart 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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The clause 'This is what actually enforces per-port VLAN membership' gestures at relevance but does not tell the agent how this differs from v2_switch_ports, v2_set_port_profile, or v2_set_port_pvid, which is the actual routing decision the agent faces.

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