getSwitchStackDetail

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 nothing further: it does not say what "detailed information" includes, whether the call fails for non-stack devices, or how large the payload typically is. For a read tool with annotations, that is a low-value contribution.

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. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than tight editing.

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?

With no output schema, the description is the only place to explain what the returned detail covers, and it says nothing. Combined with the undocumented required stackId, an agent cannot confidently tell whether this is the right tool or what it will receive.

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 carries no description there. The description does not compensate by explaining where a stackId comes from (e.g., listSitesStacks) or its expected form, leaving the required parameter semantically bare.

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 names a verb ("Fetch") and a resource ("switch stack detail"), but it is essentially an expansion of the tool name getSwitchStackDetail and adds no distinguishing scope. It never clarifies how it differs from close siblings like getSwitchDetail, listSitesStacks, or getStackPorts, which an agent must choose between.

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 prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The agent is left to infer from the name alone that this is the stack-level lookup and not the single-switch or stack-port tool.

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