list_innerspace_switches

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one real behavioral fact: a ValueError is raised when the cloud API is disabled or console_id is empty. However it never states the operation is read-only, gives no permission/authentication requirements, and does not address the mismatch between the documented 'settings' argument and the actual schema.

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 Args/Raises structure is compact and front-loads the purpose before the parameter notes. The only waste is the phantom 'settings' line, which adds noise without corresponding to any real input.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the error condition is covered. The gap is the undocumented 'controller' parameter (whose defaulting behavior is only visible in the schema) plus the spurious 'settings' entry, leaving the definition incomplete for a 3-parameter tool.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does: console_id is annotated with its source (``list_hosts``) and site_id is explained as an optional site filter. Against that, the required 'controller' parameter is never mentioned and the documented 'settings' argument does not exist in the schema, leaving the parameter surface partly undocumented and partly misleading.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('List switches placed on InnerSpace floor plans on a console'), which is distinguishable from siblings like list_innerspace_access_points and list_innerspace_floor_plans. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from those siblings or state its scope relative to the rest of the InnerSpace family.

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 when-to-use guidance and no named alternative, only a pointer that console_id comes from ``list_hosts``. That prerequisite hint is useful, but an agent still has to infer under what circumstances this list tool is preferable to the other InnerSpace or inventory listing tools.

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