get_etherchannels

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for disclosing behavior. It does not explicitly state read-only nature, potential side effects, authentication requirements, or return format. The inclusion of platform commands hints at behavior but does not sufficiently disclose traits like error handling or scoping.

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 extremely concise with two sentences and platform-specific command snippets. Every word adds value, and the structure is clean and front-loaded with the core purpose. There is no wasted content.

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 simple show command with an output schema present, the description states the core purpose and underlying commands, which is adequate. However, it does not clarify what 'link-aggregation state' includes (e.g., member ports, protocol status), nor any limitations or platform differences beyond the command mapping.

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?

The schema has one required parameter 'device' with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. The description does not mention the device parameter at all, leaving its meaning to be inferred from the name. This provides minimal value beyond the schema.

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 states 'Show link-aggregation state' with a clear verb and resource, and the platform-specific commands add specificity. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from siblings like get_interfaces or run_show_command, though the name and content make it fairly clear.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as run_show_command or get_interface_status. It only lists underlying CLI commands, which implies usage but offers no exclusions or selection criteria.

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