router_port_status

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

Annotations already establish this as readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false; the description's 'Get' is consistent with those. It adds context about the returned content but does not disclose details like whether the PoE state is hardware-dependent, how current the counters are, or any response-size caveat.

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?

A single sentence delivers the verb, resource, and key output fields with no filler. It is front-loaded and every phrase adds value.

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 no-parameter, read-only status tool, the description is largely complete: it names the exact table and its data fields. The only minor gap is that 'optional PoE state' is not explained (e.g., when it is present), and there is no explicit mention of the return shape, but the annotations cover safety and no parameters need clarification.

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 zero properties, and the description references the optional PoE state without claiming a parameter to toggle it. With no parameters to document, the baseline is 4; the description correctly focuses on the result content instead of inventing parameter guidance.

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 ('Get') and a precise resource ('the LuCI overview port table'), then enumerates the returned data categories (bridge/VLAN, link, counters, zones, optional PoE state). This is distinct from sibling tools like router_interface_details or router_realtime_stats because it targets a particular LuCI overview table.

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 states what the tool returns but gives no guidance about when to prefer it over sibling tools. There are no alternatives named, no exclusions, and no context such as 'use for port-level visibility'.

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