getSwitchDot1xSetting

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 a little domain context by explaining the setting governs port-based network access control on managed switches. It says nothing about scope, return shape, or whether defaults are merged in, so value beyond annotations is modest.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. The second sentence is slightly oblique ('Controls port-based network access control') and borders on restating the first, but nothing is verbose or padded.

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 zero-required-parameter read tool with annotations and no output schema, the definition is barely sufficient. It never hints at what the returned 802.1X settings look like or how they relate to getDot1xConfig, which matters because there is no output schema to compensate. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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%: siteId is documented with its pattern, the OMADA_SITE_ID default fallback, and a pointer to listSites. The description adds no meaning beyond that. With a single fully-documented parameter, the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Get the 802.1X switch port authentication setting.' An agent knows exactly what entity is retrieved. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling getDot1xConfig, so an agent cannot tell which of the two to call based on purpose alone.

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 beyond the resource name. Crucially, the sibling list contains getDot1xConfig, and the description gives no rule for choosing between 'switch port authentication setting' and that other 802.1X configuration tool. Nothing about prerequisites or expected context is stated.

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