getDashboardSwitchSummary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only lists returned metrics without stating whether the operation is read-only, if authentication is required, or any rate limits. The parameter hint about default site ID is minimal. The lack of behavioral context limits the agent's ability to understand side effects or constraints.

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 a single sentence of 17 words that efficiently lists the key metrics returned. Every word adds value; there is no redundant or extraneous information. It is front-loaded with the purpose and immediately informative.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description lists the metrics (switch count, ports, PoE, bandwidth) which gives adequate context for a summary tool. However, it lacks behavioral details (read-only, rate limits) and return format (e.g., units, data types). For a tool with 0 required params and 2 optional ones, it is minimally complete but insufficient for an agent to fully understand invocation behavior.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents both parameters (siteId and customHeaders). The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides; it omits mention of parameters entirely. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 it retrieves a switch summary for a site dashboard, listing specific metrics: total switch count, total ports, active ports, PoE budget used vs available, and aggregate bandwidth. This distinctively scopes the tool as an aggregated summary, differentiating it from sibling tools like getSwitchDetail or getDashboardPoEUsage.

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 alternative dashboard tools such as getDashboardMostActiveSwitches or getDashboardPoEUsage. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual hints about when this summary is appropriate, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name and description.

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