Get SwOS Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds a compatibility constraint ('SwOS or SwOS Lite') and lists return content, but does not disclose deeper behavior like multiple HTTP requests, failure modes, or return format. This is adequate but not rich.

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 a single, dense sentence that leads with the action and resource, then compacts the full scope into a list. Every clause contributes meaning; no filler or redundancy.

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 read-only status tool with two well-documented parameters and strong annotations, the description is largely complete. It lists the returned data categories, making up for the lack of an output schema. It could have mentioned the include parameter's default behavior or the distinction from get_swos_endpoint, but these are minor gaps.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining what the cryptic enum values ('link.b', 'sys.b', 'poe.b', 'sfp.b') actually return: link state/speed/duplex, system identity/model/uptime, PoE details, and SFP modules. This maps directly to the include parameter, exceeding the schema's minimal 'Which status endpoints to fetch'.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and a clear resource ('status from a MikroTik SwOS switch'), then enumerates the exact data categories: identity, model, firmware, uptime, per-port link state, PoE, and SFP modules. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_system_status (RouterOS status) and get_swos_endpoint (raw endpoint retrieval).

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 description implies usage: it should be used when you need switch status information from a SwOS/SwOS Lite device. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternatives, such as noting that get_swos_endpoint is for raw endpoint data.

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