Three tools present, all with basic descriptions and input schemas. However, critical gaps undermine quality: (1) Tool names lack action verbs, 'create_simple_lab' and 'create_enterprise_topology' are acceptable, but 'diagnose_connectivity' is vague (does it diagnose, report, or fix?). (2) Descriptions are extremely brief (18 - 50 chars), well below the 50 - 200 char baseline for LLM-optimized descriptions. (3) Parameter descriptions are minimal or absent, 'Name of the lab to create' is acceptable, but 'Source node name' and 'Target node name' lack context on what constitutes a valid node identifier. (4) No output schemas documented anywhere, LLMs cannot plan downstream calls or extract structured data. (5) No error handling guidance, tools provide no recovery hints if a lab doesn't exist or nodes are unreachable. (6) Tools are prompts, not executable tools, they appear to be workflow templates rather than callable MCP tools with actual implementations.

• Expand tool descriptions to 80 - 150 characters. Example: 'create_simple_lab' → 'Create a basic EVE-NG lab with essential network components (routers, switches). Specify lab name and description. Returns lab_id for use in other tools.'
• Document output schemas for all tools. Specify what fields are returned (e.g., lab_id, lab_name, created_at, node_count) so LLMs can chain calls and extract data.
• Add parameter constraints and discovery hints. E.g., 'source_node: Name of the source router or switch. Call list_lab_nodes() first to see available nodes in the lab.'
• Implement error handling with recovery guidance. E.g., 'Lab not found. Call list_labs() to see available labs, or create a new lab with create_simple_lab().'
• Convert prompts to executable tools. Ensure tools are registered with MCP and callable, not just workflow templates. Implement actual EVE-NG API integration.

Inferred effective spec: <=2025-11-25.

• Relies on Logging (deprecated) - log to stderr or use OpenTelemetry