getOswStackLagList

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool returns, but does not mention side effects, authorization needs, error conditions, or any destructive potential. As a read operation, it likely has no destructive side effects, but this is not explicitly stated.

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 purpose and return value; the second provides a crucial usage hint. Every sentence adds value with no fluff 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 the lack of an output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns ('configured LAG/trunk groups including member ports, load balancing mode, and status'). It also covers the key parameter requirement (stackId) and how to obtain it. It could mention the response format (e.g., array) or error cases, but overall it is sufficient for a straightforward read operation.

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 schema already has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds value by advising to use getSwitchStackDetail to find the stackId, which is not in the schema description. This helps the agent understand how to populate the required parameter.

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 specifies the tool's purpose: getting the Link Aggregation Group (LAG) list for a switch stack. It names the resource (LAG/trunk groups), the action (get), and the details returned (member ports, load balancing mode, status). It also differentiates from siblings like getStackPorts by focusing on LAG configuration.

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 provides a key prerequisite: 'Use getSwitchStackDetail to get the stackId,' guiding the agent on how to obtain the required stackId parameter. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to siblings like getSwitchStackDetail or getStackPorts.

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