getStackPorts

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Get all port information' without noting if the operation is read-only, has side effects, requires specific permissions, or has rate limits. This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 a single sentence, which is concise and well-structured with no wasted words. However, it is too minimal and lacks essential details, sacrificing completeness for brevity. It scores 3 because while concise, it fails to provide sufficient information.

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 complexity of switch stacks and the fact that there is no output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not specify what data is returned, how to handle errors, or prerequisites. With many sibling tools, more context is needed to distinguish this tool's precise function.

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 input schema has 3 parameters with 67% description coverage (siteId and customHeaders have descriptions, stackId does not). The description 'Get all port information for a switch stack' adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. It does not explain what stackId represents (e.g., how to obtain it) or hint at return values. For a tool with incomplete schema description, this is inadequate.

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 and resource: 'Get all port information for a switch stack.' It is specific and distinct from sibling tools like listSitesCableTestSwitchesPorts which deals with cable test results, so purpose is clear. However, it lacks additional context on what exactly 'port information' includes, preventing a perfect score.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios where a different tool might be more appropriate (e.g., for individual switch ports or cable test results). The description solely states the action without context.

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