port_status

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

The description explicitly discloses that the operation is read-only, which is valuable because no annotations are provided. However, it does not say what the status output contains (e.g., link state, speed, errors) or how results are structured.

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 compact, front-loaded phrase with no filler. The parenthetical 'read-only' adds meaningful safety information without bloat.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only status query, the definition is minimally adequate, but it lacks detail about what 'status' includes and does not distinguish it from similar sibling tools. With no output schema, a slightly richer description of the returned status fields would improve completeness.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and no parameter explanation is needed. The description adds no parameter semantics, but none are required for this tool.

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 names a specific resource, 'Ethernet port status', and explicitly labels it read-only, so an agent can infer this is a status-query tool. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'show' and does not differentiate it from nearby siblings such as port_speed or switch_status.

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 like port_speed, port_sniff_status, or show_status. It implies a general purpose but gives no exclusions, prerequisites, or routing hints.

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