switch_show_spanning_tree

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It says 'Show' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that it makes no changes or describe any other behavioral traits (e.g., timeout behavior, error conditions). The description is too sparse to disclose what happens on execution.

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 sentence with no redundancy, making it concise and front-loaded. However, it is extremely minimal, lacking any structure or elaboration that could be valuable for a simple command.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the returned status contains. It does not. The one-sentence description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior and output, despite the simple parameter set.

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?

The input schema already describes device_id as 'Switch device ID', giving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Show') and the resource ('spanning tree status'), distinguishing it from sibling switch_show_* tools by naming a specific status type. However, it lacks detail on what aspects of spanning tree are shown (e.g., root bridge, port roles), which prevents a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool instead of other switch_show_* tools. It does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or alternatives, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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