getCableTestLogs

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by describing what the payload contains (per-port results, length estimates, fault detection), but says nothing about how much history is returned, retention window, or whether results can be stale.

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, followed by return content and one usage note. No filler, though the third sentence is generic enough that it borders on boilerplate.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must convey the return shape, and it does so at a useful level of abstraction. With only two fully documented parameters this is close to sufficient; the missing piece is how to interpret or bound the returned history.

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%: siteId explains the default-site fallback and points to listSites, and switchMac documents the MAC format and points to listDevices. The description adds only that logs are per-switch, which does reinforce why switchMac is required, but contributes little 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Get cable test logs for a switch") and enumerates the returned content (per-port results, cable length estimates, fault detection). It is clear on its own, but it never distinguishes itself from very close siblings such as getCableTestFullResults or listSitesCableTestSwitchesPorts, leaving the agent to guess which cable-test tool to call.

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?

"Useful for diagnosing physical layer connectivity issues" gives a context-of-use signal, which is more than nothing. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus the several other cable-diagnostic siblings and no stated preconditions (e.g. whether the switch must support cable diagnostics or a prior test must exist).

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