getOswStackLagList

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. The description adds genuine value by describing the payload shape (configured LAG/trunk groups with member ports, load balancing mode, and status), which is necessary since there is no output schema. It omits edge cases such as behavior when no LAGs are configured or whether disabled/unconfigured groups are included.

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 action and scope, then the return contents, then the prerequisite. No redundant or filler wording; each sentence carries distinct information.

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 two-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the definition covers what is returned, the scoping resource, and how to obtain the required ID. Minor gaps remain around empty-result behavior and how siteId affects resolution, but nothing blocks a correct call.

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%, with both siteId and stackId fully documented in the schema, and the description largely repeats the stackId guidance already present there. It says nothing about siteId or how the default-site fallback interacts with a stackId lookup, so no meaning is added 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 (Get) and resource (LAG list) scoped to a switch stack, and enumerates what the result contains (member ports, load balancing mode, status). It does not distinguish itself from adjacent siblings such as getStackNetworkList or listSwitchNetworks, which an agent may reasonably confuse for related stack-level list calls.

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?

Gives a concrete prerequisite chain: use getSwitchStackDetail to obtain the stackId. It does not state when to prefer this over the other stack/network listing tools, nor any when-not conditions, so selection against alternatives still requires inference.

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