get_switch_ports

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does disclose the types of data returned and the filtering behavior, but it does not explicitly state read-only semantics, pagination, or response format. The 'get' prefix suggests read-only, but the description could be more explicit.

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, tightly written sentence that front-loads the resource and enumerates data fields followed by filters. No waste words, concise and well-structured.

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?

Without an output schema, the description compensates by listing what statistics are returned and the available filters. However, it omits org_id as a filter and does not describe the response shape (e.g., list of ports) or any limits, leaving some gaps. Overall, sufficient for a read-only statistics 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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 4 parameters. The description summarizes three filters (switch_mac, site_id, up) but does not add semantic detail beyond the schema; org_id is omitted from the description. Baseline of 3 applies since the schema carries the parametric meaning.

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 identifies the tool as retrieving switch/device port statistics and enumerates specific data fields (link state, speed/duplex, PoE, LLDP neighbor, traffic). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_switches by focusing on port-level metrics, though it lacks an explicit verb in the description.

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 implies that the tool is used when port-level statistics are needed and lists filterable criteria (switch_mac, site_id, up), but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or provide exclusions. The usage context is clear but not explicitly guided.

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