show_lag_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions returned data (LAG member ports, states, aggregate bandwidth) but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether it requires privileges, if it has any side effects, or how errors are handled. The description is very minimal.

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 concise with a brief overview and an explicit args section. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and avoids unnecessary words. However, the structure could be improved by integrating parameter descriptions more naturally.

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 tool has only one parameter and an output schema exists, the description provides adequate context about what the tool returns. However, it lacks context on prerequisites, such as whether the device must support LAG, and does not mention potential limitations.

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% and the description adds minimal detail: 'Name of the device as defined in devices.yaml'. This explains the parameter meaning but lacks format constraints, examples, or default values. For a single required parameter, more semantic information would be beneficial.

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 clearly states that it shows Link Aggregation Group status, including member ports, states, and aggregate bandwidth. This is a specific verb+resource combination and distinguishes from sibling tools like show_interfaces which shows all interfaces without LAG aggregation details.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not clarify when to use show_lag_status instead of show_interfaces or other network status tools. The description only states what it does without context for selection.

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