startCableTest

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the test completes asynchronously and that results are fetched separately, which is valuable. However, it does not mention whether the call returns immediately, how completion is determined, or any side effects on the switch port.

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 two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and then gives a direct pointer to the follow-up tool, making every word useful.

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 two-parameter tool, the description states the action and the next step, but it leaves gaps: it does not explain the parameters or how the agent will know the test has completed. The lack of an output schema and low parameter coverage make these missing details more noticeable.

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%, and the description provides almost no parameter guidance beyond confirming the operation happens 'on a switch', which loosely maps to switchMac. It does not explain siteId or clarify which parameter identifies the target switch, so the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema parameter descriptions.

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 ('Start'), a clear resource ('cable test on a switch'), and explicitly differentiates from the sibling getCableTestResults by noting that results are retrieved afterward. An agent can immediately understand what this tool does and how it relates to nearby tools.

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?

It provides clear usage context by telling the agent to call getCableTestResults after completion, implying this tool is for initiating the test rather than reading results. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with other alternatives, but the guidance is sufficient for this simple operation.

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