get_switch_status

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

In the absence of annotations, the description adds error code examples (bad_port, bad_speed, etc.), which provide some insight into failure modes. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits like idempotency, permissions required, or data freshness, leaving gaps for a read-only tool.

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 brief (one sentence plus error codes) but contains a typo ('swith'). It is front-loaded with the purpose, but the typo and lack of structure reduce clarity.

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 the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists (though not shown), the description is incomplete in explaining the return structure. The error codes add some context, but the overall specification is sparse for a get tool.

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?

There are no parameters, so the schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per guidelines, 0 parameters warrants a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter info, but none is needed.

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 states it returns a list of switch port statuses (SwitchPortStatus), which is specific and aligns with the tool name. It distinguishes from siblings like get_switch_port_id (which targets a single port) by implying the overall status list, but does not explicitly differentiate.

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 alternatives such as get_switch_port_id or get_switch_port_id_stats. The error codes hint at potential issues but do not help in tool selection.

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