getCableTestFullResults

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the return data (cable status, length, fault location) but omits behavioral aspects like idempotency, required authentication, side effects, or error conditions. It is adequate but could be more thorough.

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: two sentences. The first sentence states the primary action clearly, and the second adds a comparison. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

Given no output schema, the description provides a good overview of the output content. The parameter schema is fully described. The sibling context shows a related tool. It lacks mention of whether results are paginated or the exact format, but overall it is complete enough for an agent.

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?

All three parameters have schema descriptions with 100% coverage, so the description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides. The baseline is 3, and no additional context is given in the description.

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 clearly states the verb ('Get'), the specific resource ('full cable test results for all ports on a switch'), and the scope ('all ports'). It also differentiates from the sibling tool 'getCableTestLogs' by noting it provides more detailed data.

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?

The description only implies when to use this tool by stating it's 'more detailed than getCableTestLogs', but it does not provide explicit usage guidelines, such as scenarios where one should choose this over the simpler log tool, or any prerequisites like switch access permissions.

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