Get switch ports, PoE & diagnostics

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that PoE delivery and the switch-wide budget come back, which is useful scope context, but it says nothing about what the boolean flags trigger — notably whether includeCableTest performs a disruptive or slow on-wire test on a live port — and the trailing ellipsis signals the text is cut off.

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?

It is short and front-loads the verb, which is good, but the sentence trails off into an ellipsis, indicating truncated or unfinished text. Given that the space saved is spent on nothing else, the brevity reads as under-specification rather than efficiency.

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 not be explained, but a six-parameter tool with zero schema coverage and flags that may run a cable test or suppress down ports needs far more than one unfinished sentence. An agent cannot safely decide how to set compact, includeCableTest or includeCounters from this definition.

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 0% across six parameters, so the description carries the full burden and largely fails: mac, site, compact, includeCounters, includeCableTest and includeDownPorts are never mentioned or explained. The enumerated items (link status, speed/duplex, PoE, VLANs) read as output fields, not as guidance about which parameters toggle them.

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 verb ("Inspect") and a specific resource scope (per-port state on a switch), and enumerates the data returned: link status, speed/duplex, PoE delivery and budget, active port profile/VLANs. That is enough for an agent to know what it gets back. It stops short of 5 because it never distinguishes itself from nearby tools like get_device or list_port_profiles.

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 at all: no statement of which situations call for this tool rather than get_device, get_ap_radios, or list_port_profiles. The agent must infer the context from the name and the sibling list alone.

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