list_poe

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by specifying the exact command run ('/interface ethernet poe print') and clarifying the scope ('PoE-capable ethernet interfaces'), along with the partial match behavior of interface_filter. This supplements the safety profile without contradicting 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: a clear purpose statement, the underlying command for technical reference, and a focused note on the key parameter. No wasted words; important details are front-loaded.

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 a simple list operation with only two optional parameters, an output schema, and strong annotations (read-only, idempotent), the description is mostly complete. It covers the purpose, the command, and the main parameter nuance. The only minor gap is the unexplained 'device' parameter, but it is common across sibling tools and not central to the PoE-specific functionality.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description needed to compensate. It does a good job for interface_filter, explaining partial match behavior with an example ('ether' matches ether1, ether2 …). However, the 'device' parameter is left undocumented, leaving a gap in parameter understanding for users.

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 'Lists the Power-over-Ethernet (PoE) configuration of PoE-capable ethernet interfaces', naming the specific resource (PoE config) and fields (PoE-out mode, priority). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_poe_monitor and get_poe_settings, which are about monitoring and settings rather than configuration listing.

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 the tool is for retrieving PoE configuration information, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusions. The note about interface_filter gives usage context for that parameter, but there is no direct comparison with related tools.

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