getSwitchDetail

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the full burden. It does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only, whether it requires specific permissions, or what happens if the switch is not found. While it lists the data returned, it lacks transparency on side effects and error handling.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words: the first states the tool's purpose and data returned, the second provides a usage hint. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 reasonably covers the return values (model, firmware, CPU, etc.). It lacks mentions of error scenarios or response structure, but is sufficiently complete for a single-item detail 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 100%, so the description adds marginal value. It reinforces the use of listDevices for the switchMac, but does not provide additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 explicitly states the tool fetches full configuration and status for a specific switch, listing multiple specific data fields (model, firmware, CPU/memory, etc.), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like getSwitchGeneralConfig or getDevice.

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 advises to use listDevices to get the switchMac, providing a clear prerequisite. However, it does not specify when to prefer this tool over similar ones like getSwitchGeneralConfig or getSwitchStackDetail, leaving usage context implied.

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