ethernet_ports

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

With no annotations, the description carries the load, and 'link status' reasonably implies a read-only query. However it does not state that it is non-mutating, whether all ports are always returned, or what happens when a port is down — minor gaps for a zero-parameter status endpoint.

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 dense sentence with zero filler, and the content-bearing detail is front-loaded. It reads as a noun phrase rather than a sentence with a verb, which is the only structural weakness.

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?

A no-argument status tool with an output schema and 100% schema coverage needs little prose; the description tells the agent what the payload contains and the schema covers the rest. Only the read-only nature and port coverage are left implicit.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The listed fields (WAN/LAN, up/down, speed, duplex) describe the response payload rather than inputs, which adds no parameter meaning but does no harm.

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 fragment names a specific resource (physical ethernet ports) and enumerates exactly what is reported: WAN/LAN role, up/down state, speed and duplex. That is enough to distinguish it from wifi_info or router_status, though it omits an explicit verb such as 'get'/'list'.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus siblings like router_status or get_wifi_radio, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The use case is only inferable from the resource name itself.

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