getCableTestResults

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The prerequisite dependency is disclosed, and 'Get' implies a read operation, but the description does not explain what happens if startCableTest was not run, whether results are polled, or how the response is structured.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the crucial prerequisite is stated immediately after. Every word 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?

The description captures the essential workflow and core purpose, but with no output schema and no parameter details, an agent is left guessing about return values and the role of siteId. It is barely adequate for a simple two-parameter read tool, but not fully complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for missing parameter documentation. It only vaguely maps to switchMac via 'for a switch' and does not mention the optional siteId or clarify any relationship between the parameters. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description itself adds little.

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 a specific verb ('Get'), a resource ('cable test results'), and the target ('a switch'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling startCableTest by making clear this is the follow-up read operation, not the initiation.

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 instruction 'Run startCableTest first' provides a clear precondition and effectively tells the agent when this tool is appropriate: after a cable test has been started. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the workflow dependency is unmistakable.

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