Get raw port settings

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

Annotations already declare this a read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds real behavioral context beyond those flags: it returns an unmodified API object, includes nested devSetting fields, uses API units, and explains Port 0 semantics. This is useful disclosure without contradicting the annotations.

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 with no filler: the primary behavior, endpoint, special port case, unit caveat, and sibling alternative are all packed in without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the most important 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?

With a read-only annotation, both parameters explained (either in schema or description), and an output schema present, this description covers everything an agent needs to select and call the tool correctly. The reference to the docs link and converted-value alternative fills the remaining gaps.

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 only 50% because port lacks a description, but the description compensates by explaining Port 0's special meaning and the value units. controller_id is already documented in the schema. The endpoint name and 'raw' framing also clarify what the port parameter refers to.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Return the unmodified API object for a port', names the underlying endpoint (getdevModeSettingList), and clarifies the 'raw' distinction from get_port_settings. It leaves no ambiguity about what the tool returns.

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 tells the agent to use get_port_settings for converted values, which is a clear routing signal. It also adds the Port 0 = controller-level settings rule. It does not exhaustively enumerate when not to use the tool, but the guidance given is actionable.

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