Get port settings

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds meaningful behavior by specifying converted units and no scaling, and by enumerating all settings. No contradiction with annotations; no side effects are claimed.

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 operation and scope, followed by a compact inventory of values and units. No filler or repetition of schema information.

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?

Given read-only annotations, a full input schema, and an output schema, the description covers the substantive return semantics. It stops just short of explicitly guiding which sibling to choose when raw values are needed, so it is not a perfect 5.

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% and both parameters are described in the schema, including the note that controller_id comes from list_controllers. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a concrete verb+resource: 'Get the mode configuration of one port' and enumerates the exact settings returned. The final sentence 'Units are already converted; nothing is scaled' differentiates it from the raw sibling without needing to open schemas.

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?

No explicit when/when-not or named alternatives. The 'already converted; nothing is scaled' clause implies this is the human-readable variant compared with get_port_settings_raw, but the description leaves the routing decision to inference rather than stating it.

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