get_switch_port_id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavior. It lists error codes (bad_port, bad_speed, bad_link, bad_mac_entry_type), indicating validation, but does not disclose side effects, permissions, or response structure. With no annotations, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 two sentences: one for the main action and one listing error codes. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose, no fluff, and every sentence earns its place.

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 get tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers purpose and error conditions. It does not detail the return object, but the output schema fills that gap. Missing handling of invalid IDs beyond error codes, but overall sufficient.

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 single parameter 'id' is described as 'the given port id', adding basic meaning beyond the schema. However, with 0% schema coverage, the description could specify format, constraints, or examples. It minimally compensates.

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 'Get the SwitchPortConfig for the given port id', specifying the verb (get), the resource (SwitchPortConfig), and the scope (by port id). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_switch_port_id_stats and get_switch_status.

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 implies usage when you need the configuration of a specific port, but it does not explicitly state when to use or avoid this tool, nor mention alternatives. No guidance on prerequisites or context.

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