port_group_graph

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it plots all supplied ports on the same axes and requires numeric IDs. It does not specify the output format (e.g., image), but this is a minor gap for a graph-rendering 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?

The description is three sentences, each with a distinct purpose: stating the action, explaining the multi-port behavior, and differentiating from a sibling tool. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no extraneous information.

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 tool's moderate complexity (6 params, no output schema), the description is remarkably complete. It covers the core purpose, key behavioral trait (same axes), usage scenario (LAG comparison), and the critical distinction from port_graph. The parameter schema provides additional context for resolving names to IDs, so the description does not need to repeat that.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value beyond the schema by clarifying that port_ids are numeric and that all ports are plotted on the same axes, which enriches understanding of the port_ids parameter. It does not elaborate on other parameters, but the schema already covers them adequately.

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 clearly states the tool renders a traffic graph for one or more ports by numeric ID. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool port_graph by explicitly noting it takes numeric port IDs instead of interface names, and it describes the multi-port behavior of plotting on the same axes.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: for comparing members of a LAG. It also contrasts with port_graph, indicating an alternative and the specific difference (numeric IDs vs interface names). This is clear usage direction relative to siblings.

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