nodesGetManagementPort

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't clarify if it requires specific permissions, has rate limits, returns metadata only optionally, or what the response format is. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste: 'Get a specific management port.' It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for its purpose, earning a perfect score for conciseness.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return values, error conditions, or behavioral traits like authentication needs. For a tool with 5 parameters and no structured output, more context is needed to fully guide an AI agent.

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 description coverage is 100%, with all 5 parameters well-documented in the input schema (e.g., 'fabricId', 'nodeId', 'id' for identification, 'candidate' for configuration, 'includeMetadata' for response detail). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('a specific management port'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'nodesGetManagementPorts' (plural), which likely retrieves multiple ports versus this single-port retrieval. The description is specific but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention the sibling 'nodesGetManagementPorts' for retrieving multiple ports, nor does it explain prerequisites like authentication or context. Usage is implied by the name but not explicitly stated.

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