switch_ports

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

The description clearly marks the operation as read-only via '[READ]', which is good. However, it does not disclose other behaviors like error handling, rate limits, or whether the operation is safe. With no annotations, more detail would be beneficial.

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?

The description is very concise with no wasted words. It could benefit from a clearer structure (e.g., separate lines), but it is efficient and to the point.

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?

Given the simple parameters and no output schema, the description provides a basic understanding. However, it lacks information about return values, pagination, or error cases, which would improve completeness.

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 0%, so description must explain parameters. It explains 'serial' as MS switch serial and 'target' as target name from config, but does not elaborate on what 'target name from config' means or the default behavior.

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?

The description explicitly states it is a READ operation for MS switch port configuration by serial, which is a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like device_inventory or device_status.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It only provides argument descriptions, but no context about prerequisites or conditions for use.

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