port_security_list

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 description adds value by outlining the specific data covered (maximum learned MAC addresses, violation mode, current status). This goes beyond the annotation safety profile without contradicting it.

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 only two sentences: the first states the primary action and scope, the second adds meaningful detail about the content. It is front-loaded, concise, and every sentence earns its place.

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?

With an output schema present, the return format is presumably covered. The description explains what data is included and the all-device scope. It could benefit from explicitly mentioning pagination behavior or relationship to siblings, but overall it is complete for a list tool.

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?

The input schema already includes full descriptions for both limit and offset (100% coverage). The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, so this is at the baseline 3.

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 'List' and clearly identifies the resource: 'port security configuration across all devices.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like port_security_device and port_security_port by stating the scope is 'across all devices.'

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 clearly establishes the tool's broad scope ('across all devices'), which implies when to use it versus more specific siblings. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like port_security_device or port_security_port, nor does it give when-not-to-use guidance.

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