get_poe_monitor

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description is not required to repeat that. It adds valuable context by revealing the underlying command ('/interface ethernet poe monitor ... once'), which clarifies that 'monitor' is a one-shot read rather than a continuous stream. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 concise and well-structured. It leads with a clear purpose, then provides the command, and finally a note on parameter formatting. Every sentence adds value with no fluff.

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 that an output schema exists and annotations cover safety and idempotency, the description covers the essential context for using the tool: what it does, the command it runs, and interface formatting. The only gap is the undocumented 'device' parameter, but this is a minor omission given the overall clarity and the presence of an output schema.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain the 'interfaces' parameter with format and examples, which is helpful. However, it completely omits the optional 'device' parameter, leaving it undocumented. Thus the description only partially covers the parameter semantics.

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 states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Reads'), the resource ('Power-over-Ethernet monitor data'), and the target ('ethernet interfaces'). It also lists the specific data points (PoE-out status, voltage, current, power), making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like get_poe_settings and list_poe.

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 gives clear context: use this tool to read real-time PoE monitor data for specified interfaces. It even notes the one-shot execution ('once'). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it lacks the explicit exclusions needed for a 5.

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