iap_get_port_status

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. 'Return' implies a readonly operation, but it does not explain parameter precedence, scoping, or what 'port status' includes. This is a minimal but not misleading disclosure.

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 sentence with no wasted words, so it is concise. However, it is under-specified rather than optimally concise, and could afford a bit more detail without becoming bloated.

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?

The description is too thin given no annotations and an input schema with two opaque optional parameters. An agent cannot tell how to select the target device or what the output contains. The existence of an output schema helps slightly, but invocation context is still incomplete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not mention iap_ip_addr or cluster_name at all. Although parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description adds no meaning and fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 states a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('physical port status'), which is clear in broad terms. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like iap_get_wired_port_settings or iap_get_ap_stats, so some ambiguity remains.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools with similar names (e.g., iap_get_wired_port_settings, iap_get_ap_stats) make it difficult for an agent to know if this is the correct choice.

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