bridge_hosts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully clarifies field semantics (on-interface = the physical bridge port) and that entries are 'currently learned' dynamic state, but it omits read-only status, pagination/result-size behavior, and any device-side requirements.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and returned fields, followed by a use-case sentence that earns its place. The trailing README pointer is mildly meta but the whole is tight and readable.

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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema present, the description is largely complete: purpose, output fields, and usage are all covered. The only real gap is the undocumented device_name parameter, which an agent must infer from the schema title alone.

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 single parameter device_name has 0% schema description coverage and is never mentioned in the description, which spends its words on the returned fields instead. The schema does the documenting here, and the description adds nothing to compensate for the coverage 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 states a specific verb and resource ('List /interface/bridge/host entries') and enumerates the fields returned (mac-address, on-interface, bridge, dynamic, local), making clear this is the L2 MAC-learning table. This cleanly distinguishes it from L3 tables like arp_table/neighbors and from bridge_ports/bridge_vlans.

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?

It gives concrete usage guidance ('find which physical port of a bridge a given MAC is currently learned on') and routes the agent to follow-up tools (poe_status/set_poe_out). It does not, however, state when NOT to use it or name a competing tool for the same lookup, so it falls short of explicit alternative routing.

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