getStackPorts

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 nothing beyond that: it does not say what 'port information' includes (status, PoE, VLAN, link speed), whether results are paginated or complete, or what happens when the stack has no ports.

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 no filler or redundancy. Its brevity is efficient, though it borders on under-specification rather than earning every word through useful detail.

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?

The tool is simple (two parameters, read-only, no output schema), so a short description is defensible, and annotations carry the safety profile. Still, an agent gets no signal about the return payload or how stack port data differs from the sibling port/detail tools, leaving a meaningful gap for an otherwise easy tool.

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 50%: siteId is well documented in the schema, but stackId has no description and its pattern admits ':' and '-' separators, hinting at a composite identifier that the description never explains. The phrase 'for a switch stack' only restates the parameter name and does not compensate for the undocumented parameter.

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: retrieve all port information for a switch stack. That is unambiguous on its own, but it draws no boundary against nearby siblings such as getSwitchStackDetail, getGatewayPorts, or listSitesApsPorts, so an agent must infer which port endpoint applies to stacks versus gateways or APs.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives among the many sibling tools. It also does not note that siteId falls back to OMADA_SITE_ID when omitted, a scoping behavior the agent would have to discover from the schema.

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