getCableTestFullResults

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description earns credit for disclosing the payload — per-port cable status (OK/open/short), estimated length, and fault location. It does not say whether results are live-measured or cached from a prior test run, nor whether the call is expensive on large switches, which would be the remaining useful detail.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the return content, then the sibling comparison — exactly the right ordering. No filler, no restating of the tool name.

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, the description compensates by describing the returned diagnostic fields, and the two parameters are fully documented in the schema. Together this is sufficient for an agent to decide and call correctly, especially for a read-only tool whose safety profile is already in the annotations.

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 100%, with both siteId and switchMac fully documented in-schema including patterns and discovery hints (listSites, listDevices), so the baseline is 3. The phrase 'on a switch' and 'all ports' reinforces that switchMac is the required scope selector and that no per-port filtering exists, which adds a small amount of meaning beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource — retrieve full cable test results for all ports on a switch — and immediately differentiates itself from the sibling getCableTestLogs by noting it is 'more detailed.' An agent can pick between the two without opening either schema.

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?

It gives a clear selection signal against the closest sibling ('More detailed than getCableTestLogs'), implying this is the choice when per-port diagnostics are needed. It stops short of an explicit when-to-use / when-not statement or naming prerequisites, but the practical routing guidance is present.

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