list_bridge_vlans

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the shape of the returned rows (tagged/untagged membership per VLAN); it says nothing about filtering behavior, whether dynamic entries appear by default, or result ordering.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the parenthetical adds genuine scope information rather than restating the name.

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 exists, so return values need not be described, but with zero schema coverage the four input parameters remain entirely unexplained, including the key filtering options that determine what an agent gets back. For a filtered-list tool this leaves a meaningful gap.

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% across four parameters, so the description carries the full burden and largely fails it: device, dynamic_only, bridge_filter and vlan_ids_filter are never mentioned. The phrase "per VLAN" only weakly hints at vlan_ids_filter, and the string format expected (comma list vs range) is left unspecified.

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 ("Lists") and resource ("bridge VLAN table entries") and clarifies the record's content as tagged/untagged port membership per VLAN. The read verb cleanly separates it from the add/update/remove_bridge_vlan siblings, though no sibling is named 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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no pointer to alternatives such as list_bridge_ports for port-level settings or get/list of VLAN interfaces. An agent must infer from the verb alone that this is the read path for the bridge VLAN table.

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