getOswStackLagList

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It correctly implies a read-only operation through the verb 'Get', and it specifies the returned data. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (none expected), authentication requirements, or rate limits. The description is adequate but not enriched beyond the basic read nature.

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 concise: two sentences that front-load the purpose and immediately describe the return value. No unnecessary words or repetitions. Every sentence 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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description adequately describes the return value (LAG groups with member ports, mode, status). It also references a prerequisite tool. However, it could benefit from a brief contrast with sibling tools like getStackPorts to clarify when this specific tool is needed.

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 coverage is 100% with good descriptions. The description adds value by providing context for the stackId parameter ('Use getSwitchStackDetail to get the stackId') and hints about customHeaders ('Rarely needed'). This supplements the schema's information, moving beyond the baseline of 3.

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 the tool's purpose: retrieving the LAG list for a switch stack. It specifies the resource ('Link Aggregation Group (LAG) list'), the action ('Get'), and the content of the response ('member ports, load balancing mode, and status'). This differentiates it from sibling tools like getStackPorts or getStackNetworkList.

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 provides a prerequisite hint ('Use getSwitchStackDetail to get the stackId') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no guidance on when not to use it or what scenarios are more suitable for other tools.

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