iap_get_wired_port_settings

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. The verb 'Return' weakly implies a read-only operation, but it does not explain prerequisites, whether either iap_ip_addr or cluster_name is required, error behavior, or output characteristics.

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 concise with no wasted words, making it easy to parse. However, it is so terse that it omits important context about parameters and selection criteria, so brevity comes at the cost of completeness.

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 presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the description still lacks parameter semantics, usage guidance, and differentiation from siblings. For a tool with two optional parameters and no annotations, this is insufficient for reliable invocation.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the description provides no explanation of the two parameters, iap_ip_addr and cluster_name. It neither clarifies their roles nor whether they are alternatives or complements, leaving the agent without the information needed to fill them correctly.

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 ('Return') and the resource ('wired port settings'), making the tool's basic purpose understandable. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools such as iap_get_port_status or iap_get_network_detail, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like iap_get_port_status or iap_get_network_detail. The description merely states what the tool returns, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria from the name alone.

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