getSwitchDetail

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 by structured data. The description adds that this is a comprehensive snapshot covering many subsystems, but says nothing about whether siteId omission falls back to a default site, response size, or rate limiting. Adequate but with room to say more.

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?

Two tight sentences: the capability and returned fields come first, then the prerequisite pointer. No filler, no redundancy with the title or annotations.

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 with full schema coverage and no output schema, the definition covers purpose and prerequisite well. The only gap is disambiguation from the many sibling switch-detail tools and a note that the response is large and comprehensive.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the MAC format and the OMADA_SITE_ID fallback. The description reinforces the switchMac sourcing (via listDevices), adding modest navigational value but no new semantics 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 (Fetch) and resource (full configuration and status for a specific switch), then enumerates exactly what is returned: model, firmware, CPU/memory, port states, PoE usage, VLAN config, STP status. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like getSwitchGeneralConfig or getSwitchStackDetail, which cover narrower slices.

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 clear prerequisite path by naming listDevices as the way to obtain the required switchMac. It does not, however, state when to prefer this over adjacent detail tools such as getSwitchStackDetail, getSwitchGeneralConfig, or getSwitchDot1xSetting, so the agent must infer boundaries from names.

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