get_vlans

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description repeats read-only intent and adds the config source path. It does not disclose output format, pagination, or any other behavioral detail, but for a simple read-only getter the annotation plus source path is adequate.

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?

One efficient sentence front-loads the read-only nature and the core action. The config path is useful context, though the '[READ-ONLY]' prefix slightly duplicates the annotation.

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-only getter with no output schema, the description is largely sufficient: it identifies the resource and the config location. It could describe the return shape, but the operation's simplicity and annotations compensate.

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 coverage is 100%, so the one parameter 'firewall' is already fully documented. The description offers no additional parameter guidance, which is acceptable given the schema baseline of 3.

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 and resource: 'Retrieves VLAN configuration from the firewall.' The config path adds concrete detail. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling get_* tools, but the resource is clear enough.

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?

No guidance about when to use this tool instead of siblings like get_config, get_interfaces, or get_zones. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name and the generic purpose statement.

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