getDashboardMostActiveSwitches

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. However, it adds minimal behavioral context: it does not state that the tool is read-only, what happens when a site has no switches, or any rate limits. The description essentially repeats the tool name's implication without enriching the agent's understanding of 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?

A single sentence of 10 words that captures the tool's core purpose without redundancy. Every word earns its place. The structure is front-loaded and efficient.

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 simple list-retrieval tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states what is returned (most active switches) and how it's sorted (by traffic volume). The parameter descriptions in the schema handle parameter semantics. Additional details about return format (e.g., list of switch IDs/names with traffic metrics) are not critical but could slightly improve completeness for agents.

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%: both parameters have descriptions. The tool description does not add any information beyond what the schema already provides for parameters. Baseline is 3, and no extra value is contributed by the description.

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 'Get the most active switches in a site, sorted by traffic volume' clearly specifies a verb ('Get'), resource ('most active switches'), scope ('in a site'), and ordering ('sorted by traffic volume'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like getSitesSwitchesEs (which lists all switches) and getDashboardMostActiveEaps (which targets EAPs, not switches), effectively conveying its unique purpose.

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?

Usage is implied ('get the most active switches'), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives, such as when a full list of switches is needed or when switch details are required. The schema description for siteId provides helpful context about default site and discovery via listSites, but this pertains to parameter usage rather than tool-level guidelines.

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