portchannelsGetPortChannel

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 'Get' implies a read operation, but doesn't specify if it's safe (non-destructive), what permissions are required, or details about rate limits or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('Get a specific port channel'), making it efficient and easy to parse. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.

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 tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, 2 required) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks behavioral details, usage context, and output information. This results in a description that is complete enough to understand the basic purpose but insufficient for optimal agent operation without additional inference.

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%, meaning all parameters are documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying retrieval of a port channel, which is already clear from the tool name and schema. This meets the baseline score of 3 when the schema handles parameter documentation effectively.

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 port channel'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'portchannelsGetAllPortChannels' or 'portchannelsUpdatePortChannel', which would require mentioning it retrieves a single port channel by ID rather than listing all or modifying one.

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 sibling tools like 'portchannelsGetAllPortChannels' for listing all port channels or 'portchannelsUpdatePortChannel' for modifications, nor does it specify prerequisites such as needing a fabric ID and port channel ID. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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