Retrieve the read-only switch management status from the Vigor 3912S router. Use this tool to inspect current switch configuration and operational state.
Switch management status (read-only)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so description carries burden. It discloses read-only behavior, which is important for safety, but it does not explain what other side effects might occur. 'Switch management status' could mean toggling a switch; the read-only hint helps but doesn't clarify what exactly happens (e.g., return current status, no changes). No contradiction with annotations since none exist.
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?
Extremely concise at two words plus a parenthetical. It is front-loaded with the core action putting 'Switch management status' first. No wasted words, though could benefit from a few more words to disambiguate.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, and given the ambiguity of the verb 'switch' and the swarm of 200 sibling tools, the description is inadequate. An agent cannot confidently decide whether to call this vs swm_get or switch_status. It needs clarity on the exact function and scope.
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 decipher, so schema coverage is 100% trivially. The description implies it operates on 'management status' but doesn't clarify what 'switch' means. With no parameters, the description is the only semantic aid, and it is minimally informative but not misleading.
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?
Description says 'Switch management status (read-only)' with a clear verb 'switch' and a resource 'management status', and notes read-only. However, it is ambiguous whether 'switch' means toggling a state or querying status in the switch context; the read-only hint suggests querying but the verb 'switch' could confuse. It partially distinguishes from siblings like swm_get and swm_enable but does not explicitly name them.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. 'Read-only' implies it is a status query, but siblings like swm_get, switch_status, swm_detail all appear related be status or info. No alternatives are named, so an agent would have to infer usage from context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.