monitor_switch_controller_port_stats

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

While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, the description does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive or safe to use. With no annotations, the description carries full burden but adds no behavioral details beyond the basic operation.

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?

Single sentence of 11 words, front-loaded, with no wasted words. Every word contributes to the purpose.

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 the presence of an output schema and the concise description, the tool's purpose is sufficiently explained. It could mention prerequisites like requiring managed switches, but the description already specifies 'managed FortiSwitch devices'.

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 description adds no additional meaning beyond the input schema, which already provides full parameter descriptions with 100% coverage. 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 verb 'Get' and resource 'per-port traffic statistics for managed FortiSwitch devices', making it specific and distinct from sibling tools like monitor_switch_controller_managed_switch.

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., monitor_interface_stats or other monitoring tools). The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate.

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