nodesGetManagementPorts

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 only states the action ('Get'), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, response format, or whether it's idempotent. 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, clear sentence: 'Get the list of management ports.' It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no unnecessary words or redundancy. This is appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 the complexity (a tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what management ports are, the response structure, or behavioral traits. While conciseness is good, the lack of context makes it inadequate for an agent to fully understand how to use this tool effectively, especially compared to siblings.

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 100%, with all parameters well-documented in the input schema (e.g., fabricId, nodeId, candidate, includeMetadata). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as examples or usage tips. According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even without param info in the description.

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 'Get the list of management ports' clearly states the action (get) and resource (management ports), but it's vague about scope and context. It doesn't specify what management ports are (e.g., network ports for device management) or how this differs from sibling tools like 'nodesGetManagementPort' (singular) or 'nodesGetPorts' (general ports). The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity and 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 prerequisites (e.g., needing a fabric and node), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'nodesGetManagementPort' (singular) or 'nodesGetPorts' (all ports). Without such context, an agent might struggle to choose correctly among similar tools in the list.

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