port_security_port

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond scope (single port), which is already clear from the name. No mention of response format, error behavior, or prerequisites, but the annotations cover safety properties adequately.

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 a single clear sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the action verb and specific resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word contributes to the meaning.

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 simple read-only tool with a single documented parameter, output schema, and annotations, the description covers the necessary essence. It does not include explicit usage context or alternative comparisons, but the simple nature and rich structured metadata make this adequate. Slightly more context could elevate it, but it's not critically incomplete.

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 coverage is 100%: the only parameter, port_id, is described as 'Port ID'. The description's phrase 'single port' relates to the parameter but adds no extra semantic depth beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema fully documents the parameter.

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 action (Get), the resource (port security configuration), and the scope (single port). This distinguishes it from siblings like port_security_list (likely multiple) and port_security_device (device-level), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage for a single port via 'single port', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., port_get or port_security_list). No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided, relying on the reader to infer intent.

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