switch_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: it discloses side-effect freedom (never logs in, never POSTs), the single reachability GET it performs, and a privacy guarantee (never returns the password or cookies). It stops short of stating rate limits, mutation of breaker state, or failure behavior, so it's strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Very short and front-loaded with the operative label "Healthcheck" followed by the specifics. Terms like "session-model guess" and "breaker state" are terse jargon but compact rather than wasteful.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey the return content, and it lists the four things the healthcheck reports. That covers the essentials for a zero-arg diagnostic, though the exact shape/values of each field remain unspecified.

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 no parameter meaning is required and the baseline of 4 applies; the description correctly implies a no-argument call.

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?

States a specific purpose ("Healthcheck") and enumerates what it probes/returns: policy, a credential-free reachability GET, session-model guess, and breaker state. This is distinct from data-retrieval siblings like switch_get_ports, but the boundary against switch_check_auth and switch_get_system_info is not drawn, so an agent can't fully disambiguate.

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?

Usage is only implied: the emphasis on "credential-free" and "never logs in" suggests this is safe to call before authentication or when diagnosing connectivity, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use versus switch_check_auth is stated.

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