unifi_switching

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'read-only views' and 'Read' labels. Beyond annotations, it adds pagination envelope details and a comprehensive filter expression grammar, which are substantial behavioral disclosures.

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 moderately long but well-structured with a purpose line, operation list, and separate explanations for pagination and filtering. Each section earns its place given the tool's complexity, though it could be slightly tighter.

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's scope (six operations, pagination, filtering) and absence of an output schema, the description covers essential usage context: operation names, page envelope, filter grammar, and read-only nature. It leaves little ambiguity about how to invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema describes each parameter's purpose and usage, but the description adds critical semantics for the filter parameter by explaining the full expression syntax (functions, combinators, string quoting, wildcards). It also clarifies pagination defaults and max limits, going beyond schema descriptions alone.

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 'Switching read-only views (LAGs, MC-LAG domains, switch stacks)' and then lists six specific read operations. This explicitly names the resource types and distinguishes the tool from sibling tools focused on devices, networks, clients, etc.

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 scopes the tool to switching resources via its title and operation list, but it does not explicitly name when to prefer this tool over siblings or when not to use it. However, the read-only and domain-specific framing provides implicit guidance.

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