List VLANs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: FortiOS quarantine VLANs are excluded, and a filtered_out count reports how many were omitted. It does not mention pagination behavior, but the schema already documents limit and offset.

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 two sentences and front-loads the core purpose before explaining the rationale and exclusion behavior. It is efficient and avoids repetition, though the second sentence carries some explanation that could be trimmed.

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 a full output schema, four fully documented parameters, and complete annotations, the description does not need to explain return values or parameter formats. It adds the key domain-specific caveat about quarantine VLAN exclusion and filtered_out. The only minor gap is explicit guidance on sibling selection, which would make usage unambiguous.

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 all four parameters are fully documented in the input schema including defaults and caps. The description does not add parameter syntax, format, or semantics beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 verb and resource: list VLAN sub-interfaces with their tags and parent interfaces. It also distinguishes itself from the closest sibling, list_interfaces, by framing itself as a focused subset. However, it does not explicitly name list_interfaces or list_vlans alternatives, leaving a small gap.

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 gives implied usage: it explains that this is a focused view because VLANs are asked about more often than the full interface list. But it never states when an agent should choose list_vlans instead of list_interfaces or any other sibling, nor any prerequisites such as required target or vdom context.

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