Reads detailed native VLAN state from a bound staged device, returning actual configuration instead of default or capacity assumptions.
Read detailed native VLAN state from one bound staged device; no default or capacity guesses.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| device | Yes | ||
| topology | Yes | ||
| project_path | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds one meaningful behavioral note — returned data reflects real state with 'no default or capacity guesses' — but says nothing about scope of VLANs returned or failure modes for unbound devices.
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 compact sentence with the key scope constraint front-loaded and no filler. Slightly cryptic phrasing ('capacity guesses') is the only cost.
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?
Three required parameters are entirely undescribed, there is no output schema, and the description does not explain what 'native VLAN state' includes or the relationship between project_path, topology, and device. For a three-param read tool with zero schema coverage, this is under-specified.
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% and all three parameters (project_path, topology, device) are undocumented in the schema. The description only loosely gestures at 'device' via 'one bound staged device' and gives no meaning for project_path or topology, so it fails 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?
States a specific verb+resource: 'Read detailed native VLAN state,' scoped to 'one bound staged device.' The 'no default or capacity guesses' clause signals that values are actual device data rather than inferred, which helps distinguish it from planning/apply siblings like hcl_apply_vlan or hcl_estimate_plan, though it stops short of naming a specific alternative.
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 phrase 'from one bound staged device' implies a precondition (the device must already be staged/bound), which is useful implicit guidance. However, it never states when to choose this over related read tools such as hcl_inspect_ports or hcl_read_qos, and no exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.