ndfc_get_all_switches

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the tool returns a dict with list of switches but does not disclose whether it is read-only, requires prior login, rate limits, or any side effects. The information is minimal.

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 extremely concise with two lines. It front-loads the purpose and avoids any extraneous information. 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?

For a no-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the return structure but is vague with 'etc.' It does not mention prerequisites like authentication or how it differs from the similar sibling 'ndfc_get_switches'. Completeness is adequate but could be improved.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the description need not explain them. However, it does add value by outlining return fields (serial numbers, fabric, IP addresses), which is helpful beyond the schema.

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 'Get list of all switches across all fabrics,' which is a specific verb+resource. It implies a comprehensive scope, but it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling 'ndfc_get_switches' or other related 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions such as authentication requirements.

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