getSwitchDetail

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 describes what data is returned but does not explicitly state that the operation is safe/read-only, nor does it mention rate limits, auth needs, or side effects. The description is adequate but lacks behavioral details.

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?

Two sentences with no extraneous words. The first sentence lists all returned fields concisely, and the second provides a critical usage hint. Every sentence is valuable.

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 3 parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate context: explains both required and optional parameters, mentions expected data returned, and gives a usage pointer. It lacks an explicit note about the output format but is otherwise complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the default behavior of siteId (fallback to OMADA_SITE_ID), how to obtain switchMac (from listDevices), and that customHeaders is rarely needed. This exceeds the schema descriptions.

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 fetches full configuration and status for a specific switch, listing specific data (model, firmware, CPU, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like getApDetail (for APs) and getSwitchGeneralConfig (only general config).

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 mentions using listDevices to get the switchMac, providing a prerequisite. It implies correct usage context (for a specific switch's full detail) but does not explicitly contrast with more specific sibling tools like getSwitchDot1xSetting or getSwitchGeneralConfig.

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