list_vlans

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well on the key trait: the default exclusion of disabled interfaces and the opt-in flag to change it. It omits secondary details (permissions, pagination, whether the list is live vs cached), which keeps it short of a 5.

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 action and target, followed by the field list and then the behavioral caveat. The field enumeration is dense but earns its place by previewing the output, though it could be trimmed since an output schema exists.

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?

An output schema is present, so return format is covered and the description reinforces it with concrete fields. The main behavioral nuance (disabled filtering) is disclosed, but the undocumented `device_name` parameter leaves a small gap for a read-only listing tool with no annotations.

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%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It clearly explains `include_disabled` semantics (default false, set True to include disabled), but says nothing about `device_name`, leaving one of two parameters undocumented anywhere.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (VLAN interfaces) plus the underlying endpoint `/interface/vlan`, and enumerates the returned fields. It also positions itself against the sibling `interfaces` by noting the shared default-filtering behavior, so an agent can tell it apart from `bridge_vlans` or generic `interfaces` without opening a schema.

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 implies usage via the default behavior ('excludes disabled by default, like `interfaces`; pass include_disabled=True to see them') and references a sibling, but it never explicitly states when to choose this tool over alternatives such as `interfaces` or `bridge_vlans`. Context is implied rather than spelled out.

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