switch_status

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 says 'read-only', which is a minimal safety signal, but it does not explain what the status output contains, whether it reflects a physical switch, a software switch, a port group, or a system state, or whether any side effects or prerequisites exist. The description adds almost no behavioral context beyond the name.

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 extremely short, which is concise, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. 'Switch status (read-only)' is a fragment, not a sentence, and it does not earn its place by adding meaningful information beyond the tool name. It is not verbose, but it is not well-structured either.

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 enormous sibling list with many status/query tools (switch_query, switch_list, show_status, port_status, etc.), the description is incomplete. An agent cannot determine what 'switch' refers to, what the output looks like, or how this differs from switch_query. With no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context but does not.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden on the description. The schema is trivially complete (100% coverage with an empty properties object), and the description correctly implies a no-argument status query. Baseline 4 is appropriate for a zero-parameter 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 'Switch status (read-only)' names a resource ('switch') and a verb ('status'), but the verb is a noun-like query and the description is extremely terse. It does not distinguish this from the many sibling status tools (show_status, switch_query, switch_list, port_status, etc.), so an agent cannot tell what 'switch' refers to or what status is being retrieved.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes switch_list, switch_query, switch_on, switch_off, and many status tools, but the description does not mention any of them or provide selection criteria. The only hint is 'read-only', which is implicit in the name and not enough to route an agent.

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