getGatewayPorts

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. Beyond that, the description discloses the returned content (link status, speed, IP, bytes in/out, port profile), which matters because there is no output schema. It says nothing about pagination, error behavior for an unknown MAC, or size of the response, which keeps it below a 5.

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 and returned fields, then the sibling comparison, then the prerequisite. Every sentence carries distinct information with no 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?

For a read-only, two-parameter lookup tool, the description plus annotations and a fully described schema cover what an agent needs to invoke it correctly. The only remaining gap is behavioral detail about the response shape beyond the field list, which is minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 both parameters are fully documented there, including the siteId default and MAC format, so the baseline is 3. The description only repeats the listDevices hint already present in the gatewayMac schema field and adds no new meaning for siteId or the MAC format.

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 all WAN and LAN port details') and enumerates exactly what is included: link status, speed, IP address, bytes in/out, and port profile. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tools getGatewayWanStatus and getGatewayLanStatus, so an agent can separate them without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly positions itself relative to alternatives ('More detailed than getGatewayWanStatus or getGatewayLanStatus'), giving a clear selection signal, and adds a prerequisite routing hint ('Use listDevices to get the gatewayMac'). It does not explicitly say when to prefer the lighter-weight siblings, but the comparative guidance is enough for correct routing.

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