listSitesCableTestSwitchesIncrementResults

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, destructive, requires permissions, or the nature of 'incremental results'. The name suggests listing, but description says 'get'; this ambiguity is not resolved.

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 short sentence, which is concise but at the expense of completeness. It efficiently states the core purpose but omits details about returns or context. It is not verbose, but could better use word count to cover key points.

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?

No output schema and no explanation of what 'incremental results' means or the return format. The description is too brief for a tool that likely has complex return data. Sibling tools like getCableTestFullResults may provide contrast, but this tool's description lacks completeness.

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 coverage is 100% with each parameter described. The description adds value beyond schema by noting siteId defaults to config, customHeaders rarely needed, and switchMac hints to use listDevices. This is helpful context that aids correct invocation.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'cable test incremental results for a switch', clearly indicating the tool's action. However, it does not distinguish from siblings like getCableTestFullResults or getCableTestLogs, so it loses a point for lack of differentiation.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that full results are obtained via getCableTestFullResults or that logs are via getCableTestLogs. Also no prerequisites or context like the need for a compatible switch.

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