getOswStackLagList

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a read-only operation ('Get', 'Returns configured...') and describes the output. It does not mention potential side effects, rate limits, or permissions, but for a simple read tool this is adequate. The description is transparent about the action and result.

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 consists of two concise sentences. The first sentence states the purpose and return content, the second provides a critical prerequisite. No extraneous words or repetition; every sentence 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?

Given no output schema, the description offers a high-level overview of returned fields (member ports, load balancing mode, status) but lacks details on the response structure, pagination, error cases, or additional considerations. It is adequate for a simple list tool but incomplete for an agent to fully handle edge cases or parse the response.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add new information beyond the schema; it repeats the prerequisite for stackId already in the schema. No additional parameter details are provided that would enrich the agent's understanding 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 explicitly states the verb 'Get', the resource 'Link Aggregation Group (LAG) list', and the target 'switch stack'. It specifies the returned data (member ports, load balancing mode, status), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like getStackPorts or getStackNetworkList.

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 prerequisite (use getSwitchStackDetail to get stackId) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like getStackPorts or getStackNetworkList. The usage context is implied by the tool's name and description but lacks explicit guidance on exclusions.

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