get-organization-switch-ports-statuses-by-switch

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosures. It only mentions 'read-only', which is a positive signal, but fails to describe the return format, pagination behavior, or required permissions. The richness of the input schema (13 parameters) suggests complex behavior not addressed in the description.

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 (one sentence plus parenthetical), which is positive for brevity. However, given the tool's complexity (13 parameters, no output schema), the description is under-specified. It could benefit from a short bullet list or additional context without sacrificing conciseness.

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?

The description lacks completeness for a tool with 13 parameters and no output schema. It does not explain the meaning of 'statuses', indicate which fields are returned, or describe pagination tokens ('startingAfter', 'endingBefore'). The agent is left to infer critical context from the schema alone.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter-specific information, relying entirely on the schema. It does not degrade the semantics but also does not enhance meaning beyond what is already provided.

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 ('List'), resource ('switchports'), and scope ('in an organization'). The addition of '(read-only)' clarifies the operation type. While the tool name is lengthy, the description effectively conveys the purpose. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from similar sibling tools like 'get-organization-switch-ports-by-switch'.

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 switch-list-ports or switch-list-statuses. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The sole sentence is insufficient for an agent to decide between this and other switch-related tools.

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