bridge_ports

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the mapping function but does not indicate whether the tool is read-only, what the output format is, or any side effects. This is minimal transparency for a tool with zero annotations.

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 a single concise sentence that earns its place. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource, with no unnecessary words.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what the tool returns, how to interpret the mapping, or any usage context. A more complete description would mention that it lists all interfaces and their bridge associations.

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 tool has no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter info, but none is needed. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description does not detract.

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 'Pemetaan port ke bridge (interface mana ikut bridge mana)' clearly states the tool maps ports to bridges. It is specific about the resource (bridge ports) and the action (mapping). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'bridge_hosts' or 'ethernet_ports', though the focus on bridge membership is distinct.

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 (e.g., 'bridge_hosts' for hosts on bridges, 'vlans' for VLAN assignments). The description does not specify context or prerequisites.

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