getSwitchGeneralConfig

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 usefully adds what the read actually contains (LED, LLDP, flow control, and other global switch parameters), which substitutes for the absent output schema; it stops short of noting auth requirements or whether values are site-scoped.

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 sentences, both earning their place: the field inventory comes first and the identifier-acquisition hint second. There is no filler or restated title.

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 tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description gives enough: it names the config domains returned and how to obtain the switch MAC. The catch-all "other global switch parameters" leaves the exact return set slightly open, which is the main residual 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% across both parameters, including the MAC format example, the siteId default from OMADA_SITE_ID, and the listSites/listDevices discovery hints. The description adds no semantics beyond that, so the baseline 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 uses a specific verb and resource ("Get general configuration for a switch") and enumerates concrete fields — device name, LED settings, LLDP settings, flow control. It does not, however, distinguish itself from near-neighbours such as getSwitchDetail or getSitesSwitchesEsGeneralConfig, so an agent cannot tell from the text alone which switch-config getter to pick.

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?

The only usage guidance is "Use listDevices to get switchMac values", which tells the agent how to acquire the required identifier but not when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when it is not appropriate. The same pointer already appears in the switchMac schema description, so it adds little beyond structured data.

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