getDashboardSwitchSummary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and the bar is lower. The description adds that the result is an aggregate summary (counts and totals rather than per-switch records), which helps set expectations. It says nothing about freshness, caching, or whether totals include offline switches — meaningful for a dashboard metric tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the action first and the returned metrics enumerated after a colon. Every clause earns its place; no filler or redundancy.

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 listing the aggregate fields the caller will receive, and the one optional parameter is fully handled by the schema. Minor omission: it doesn't say whether figures are site-wide for all switches or filtered, but for a low-parameter read-only dashboard tool this is nearly complete.

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% and the single siteId parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the OMADA_SITE_ID default and the listSites discovery hint. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the 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?

Names a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('switch summary for a site dashboard') and enumerates the exact metrics returned: switch count, ports, active ports, PoE budget, bandwidth. That makes its role distinguishable from granular siblings like getDashboardPoEUsage or getSwitchDetail. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with the other dashboard tools (getDashboardOverview, getDashboardWifiSummary).

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?

Usage is only implied by the words 'for a site dashboard' — an agent can infer this is an at-a-glance aggregate rather than a per-device query. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over getDashboardOverview or getSitesSwitchesEs, and no preconditions or exclusions are given.

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