Device Ports Get

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

Annotations already state readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable non-obvious behavior: the fallback to ID lookup and the resulting schema difference (missing in_rate/out_rate fields). This is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot convey. It doesn't mention auth/permissions, but that's minor for a read tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then a concise caveat about proxy behavior and fallback. Two sentences, no waste. Could potentially be tightened but is appropriately sized.

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?

Given there's an output schema, the description needn't explain return values, and it correctly notes the shape difference in the fallback case. It's complete enough for an agent to call correctly. Lacks explicit mention of pagination or error handling, but those are less critical here.

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% and parameter descriptions are provided, so baseline is 3. The description implies that ifname is used for the lookup but doesn't add format details or examples beyond 'Te2/7', which is more of an example than parameter semantics. No additional value over 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?

Clear specific verb+resource: 'Get port info for a device by interface name.' Distinguishes itself from siblings like device_ports (which lists ports for a device generally) by emphasizing lookup by interface name. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with port_get or device_ports, so sibling differentiation is only implied.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives named. It describes a failure mode (name lookup failing behind proxies) but doesn't say 'use this instead of X when Y'. An agent must infer which sibling to use.

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