getDashboardPoEUsage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds the aggregation model (per-switch power consumption for a whole site), which is useful context beyond the annotations, but says nothing about return shape, time window, or what happens when no PoE devices 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?

One front-loaded sentence with the resource name first and the reporting granularity second; there is no filler, hedging, or redundant restatement of the title.

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?

For a read-only, no-required-parameter tool with a fully documented single parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose and granularity adequately. Minor gaps remain around the reporting window (real-time vs. historical) and whether results are per-port or per-switch only.

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 coverage is 100% and the single optional siteId parameter already documents the pattern, the OMADA_SITE_ID default fallback, and the listSites discovery hint. The description adds no parameter detail, which is acceptable given the schema does the work, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Get') and resource ('PoE usage statistics for a site') and adds the unit of reporting ('power consumption per switch'), so an agent knows exactly what data comes back. It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby dashboard siblings such as getDashboardSwitchSummary or getDashboardMostActiveSwitches, which likely also cover switch-level power or activity.

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?

The scope 'for a site' implicitly tells the agent this is the tool for site-wide PoE power checks, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no mention of how it differs from the many other getDashboard* tools. Usage is inferable from the purpose rather than stated.

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