get_port_counters

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read but never states that it is non-mutating, requires no special permissions, or has any rate/scoping behavior. It only discloses the category of counter data returned, which is thin for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

It is a single short fragment with no filler and the key information is front-loaded. However, the size reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness, since several needed details are simply absent.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and this is a simple one-parameter read tool. Still, with no annotations and an undocumented required parameter, the definition leaves the agent guessing about invocation details that the description should have covered.

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 single 'port' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, and the description only hints at it with 'per-port'. It does not say what form the port identifier takes (index, name, interface number) or whether it refers to a physical port versus a LAG, leaving the one required parameter under-specified.

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 noun phrase names a specific resource (per-port MIB counters) and enumerates the counter categories (octets, packets, discards, errors), which is enough to distinguish it from siblings like get_port_status. It lacks an explicit verb, but the 'get_' prefix and the resource naming make the intent unambiguous.

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 indication of when to use this versus the many sibling read tools (get_port_status, get_mac_table, get_pvids, etc.). Nothing tells the agent what condition selects counter retrieval over status retrieval, and no prerequisites are stated.

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