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 safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it plots all supplied ports on the same axes and supports LAG comparison. This is useful but does not fully describe the output format or any rendering details.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and resource, followed by a clear differentiator from the sibling tool. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition of schema content.

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?

For a read-only graphing tool with six well-documented parameters and clear annotations, the description covers the essential selection and invocation context. The only notable omission is the absence of any statement about what the tool returns or how the rendered graph is delivered, but the phrase 'Render a traffic graph' gives reasonable expectation of the outcome.

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 schema already explains each parameter, including port_ids, time range, width, height, and legend. The description slightly reinforces that port IDs are numeric and that all ports share a single graph, but it does not add substantial parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific action ('Render a traffic graph') on a specific resource ('one or more ports, by port ID') and immediately distinguishes itself from the closely named sibling port_graph by the input type. There is no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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?

It explicitly names port_graph as the alternative and gives the differentiating condition: this tool takes numeric port IDs rather than interface names. It also gives a concrete use case ('comparing members of a LAG'), so an agent knows when to choose this tool over its siblings.

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