get_vlans

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It indicates a read-only operation by using 'List' and describes the data returned, but it does not explicitly state that the operation has no side effects, requires no special permissions, or mention any edge cases. This is adequate but not fully transparent.

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 concise sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the primary purpose and then lists the useful output attributes, earning every word.

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?

This is a simple zero-parameter list tool with no output schema. The description covers the main categories (network segments, VLANs, network groups) and the returned attributes (names, subnets, VLAN IDs, interfaces). It does not discuss formatting, ordering, or hidden items, but for this simple read-only use case it is sufficiently complete.

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?

The tool accepts zero parameters, and the input schema is empty. There are no parameter semantics to document; the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds value by detailing the output contents, which is the relevant semantic information for this tool.

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 the specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource: network segments, VLANs, and network groups configured on the Firewalla. It also enumerates the returned fields (network names, subnets, VLAN IDs, interfaces), making its purpose unmistakable and distinct from sibling tools like get_devices or get_network_status.

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?

Usage is implied from the description: call this tool when you need to retrieve the Firewalla's VLAN/segment configuration. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but given the focused resource and zero parameters, the intended use is reasonably clear.

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