getSwitch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does state the core behavior: it reads and returns full switch information, specifically including portList. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, how errors or missing MACs are handled, or any response envelope details.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence contains the key action, resource, notable output field, and required lookup key. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 getter with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers its main purpose and the primary parameter. It is adequate but incomplete: siteId, error behavior, and relationship to sibling tools are left unaddressed.

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. It clarifies that switchMac is a MAC address, but it does not explain the optional siteId parameter at all, leaving part of the input schema undocumented.

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 names a specific action ('Get'), a specific resource ('full switch info'), and a distinguishing detail ('including portList array') plus the lookup key ('by MAC address'). This differentiates it from siblings like getDevice, getSwitchPorts, and getSwitchStackDetail.

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 full switch details for a given MAC are needed, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives such as getDevice or getSwitchPorts. No exclusions or alternative-route guidance is provided.

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