listSitesCableTestSwitchesPorts

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no note about whether the switch must support cable test, whether an empty list is possible, or how results relate to getCableTestFullResults, making it essentially a restatement of the tool name.

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 short sentence with the resource and constraint front-loaded and zero wasted words. Its brevity is efficient, though it borders on under-specification for a tool embedded in a multi-step cable-test workflow.

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 params, full schema coverage, read-only annotations, no output schema), so the minimal description is not crippling. However, it omits the workflow context that would let an agent know why and when to call it before getCableTestFullResults or getCableTestLogs, leaving the definition only minimally viable.

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%, and the schema already explains siteId defaulting to OMADA_SITE_ID and the switchMac MAC format with discovery hints. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, 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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List ports available for cable test on a switch'), which is clear and distinct from siblings like getCableTestLogs or getCableTestFullResults. It stops short of naming any sibling or stating scope boundaries, so the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given: the description never says this is the prerequisite step before running a cable test on a switch port, nor does it distinguish itself from the other cable-test tools in the sibling list. The agent must infer the workflow position from the tool name alone.

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