Port Security List

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context about the fields covered (max MACs, violation mode, status), but does not disclose pagination behavior or potential result size. Since annotations carry the main safety burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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 sentences with no fluff, the action is front-loaded, and the coverage details are listed compactly. 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?

For a list tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description sufficiently explains scope and covered fields. Pagination is not explicitly mentioned, but the limit/offset parameters make it inferable, so nothing critical is missing.

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% for both parameters (limit and offset), so the schema fully documents their meaning. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, matching the baseline for fully covered schemas.

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 verb ('List'), a resource ('port security configuration'), and a scope ('across all devices'), which helps distinguish it from per-device or per-port alternatives. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools like port_security_device or port_security_port, so differentiation is implicit rather than direct.

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 phrase 'across all devices' implies that this tool is for global listing, while per-device or per-port siblings exist as alternatives. But the description provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, leaving the decision to inference.

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