Port Fdb

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context by identifying the data source (forwarding database) and the conceptual direction of the query, while also clarifying the reverse-lookup relationship with fdb_lookup.

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?

The description is two tight sentences: the first states the core function, and the second provides the differentiating use case and points to the alternative. No wasted words, and the main purpose is front-loaded.

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 the read-only annotations, complete parameter schema, and existing output schema, the description provides everything an agent needs to select and invoke the tool correctly. It also resolves ambiguity against the closely related fdb_lookup sibling.

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%, with each parameter already documented in the input schema. The description itself does not add parameter-level meaning beyond naming the resource, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'List the MAC addresses learned on a port, from the forwarding database.' It clearly states what the tool does and even frames it as answering 'what is connected to this port', which distinguishes it from the sibling fdb_lookup.

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 description explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool ('what is connected to this port') and when not to, directing it to fdb_lookup when the goal is to find which port a known MAC sits on. This is clear routing guidance with a named alternative.

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