get_poe_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the operation is a 'show' (implying read-only) and adds a scope limitation (PoE switches). However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is non-destructive or describe any other behavioral traits beyond what the name and command already imply.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and includes only necessary context (the CLI command and the PoE constraint). Every word earns its place.

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 a simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete. It states the purpose, the underlying command, and the applicable device type. The only gap is the absence of explicit alternative references, but that is partially addressed in the usage guidelines.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not add any meaning to the 'device' parameter beyond its name. The parameter is self-explanatory in the context of network tools, but the description does not compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 the action ('Show') and the resource ('PoE inline power status'), and includes the underlying CLI command for additional clarity. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_environment or get_interfaces that might cover other power aspects.

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 a clear when-to-use condition: 'Only meaningful on PoE switches.' This is useful exclusionary guidance. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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