Retrieve port security settings from a Zyxel GS1900 switch to review MAC-based access controls and protected port configuration before applying changes.
Port Security configuration.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses nothing about read-only behavior, authentication requirements, rate limits, or any other trait; it is completely silent on behavior.
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 short sentence fragment with no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than concise. There is no verb, action, or purpose front-loaded, so it fails to inform the agent.
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?
Although the tool is simple with no parameters and has an output schema, the absence of annotations plus a purely nominal description leaves an agent unable to distinguish this getter from others or understand its usage context.
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 tool has zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter meaning, and none is expected.
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 'Port Security configuration.' is a noun phrase that restates the resource but does not state the action (e.g., retrieve/read). It relies entirely on the tool name 'get_port_security_config' to convey that it is a getter, and it does not differentiate itself from sibling getters like get_stp_config beyond the resource name.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or context of use. The description contains no when-to-use or when-not-to-use information despite many sibling configuration getters.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.