get_port_profiles

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this by adding the specific return contents: each port profile's name and applied settings (PoE, VLAN, forwarding). It does not add deeper behavioral context like pagination or filtering limitations, but the read-only annotation lowers the bar.

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 compact and front-loads the core purpose and read-only nature. The Args section is somewhat redundant with the schema, but it is brief and does not clutter the overall structure.

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 getter with two optional parameters, the description covers what it returns, how it is scoped, and how it relates to the mutation sibling. No critical context is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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 fully documents both parameters. The description's Args block simply repeats that information without adding new meaning beyond defaults and optionality already present in the schema.

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 ('Get switch port profile configurations'), names the resource ('port profiles'), and scopes it to a site. It also helps differentiate from the sibling set_device_port by showing what this tool is not for.

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 frames this as a read-only lookup and names the sibling set_device_port as the alternative for applying changes. This gives the agent clear decision guidance without requiring it to infer usage.

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