getSwitchNetworks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' conveys a read-only retrieval operation, and 'VLAN trunking configuration' describes what is returned. However, it does not explain output shape, paging/errors, or how siteId/site scope affects behavior.

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 efficient sentence with no filler or redundancy. The core verb and resource are front-loaded, and 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 tool is fairly simple, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description needed to provide more context about the required switchMac parameter and the meaning/siteId. The current one-liner is minimally identifying but leaves the agent without enough detail to invoke it confidently.

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 was expected to compensate for the undocumented parameters. It does not explain switchMac or siteId at all; 'for a switch' is only a faint clue to the required switchMac and siteId is completely unexplained.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('switch networks / VLAN trunking configuration'), which clearly identifies what the tool retrieves. This also distinguishes it from siblings like setSwitchNetworks (a write operation) and getSwitchPorts (a different resource).

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 explains what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to choose it over alternatives. It does not mention related tools such as getSwitch, getSwitchPorts, or setSwitchNetworks, nor does it state any exclusions or conditions.

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