v2_switch_ports

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description goes beyond that by disclosing derived behavior: it emits warnings for STP-off / loopback-off / all-VLAN / dead ports and marks inter-switch trunks, telling the agent the output contains computed diagnostics rather than raw config.

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?

Very compact: one dense enumeration sentence plus a warning/trunk sentence. The scope ('every port on every switch') is front-loaded. The first sentence is a run-on attribute list that is efficient but slightly hard to parse.

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 no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields and the derived warnings/anomaly flags, which an agent needs to interpret results. It is complete enough for a read-only per-port report, with siteId semantics the main remaining gap.

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% (only switchMac carries a description); siteId is undocumented in both schema and description. The description's '(or one switch)' reinforces the switchMac scoping semantics, but it says nothing about siteId's role or whether omitting it changes the result set.

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 makes clear this is a per-port reporting tool on switches, enumerating exactly what gets decoded (link/speed, PVID, VLAN tagging, PoE, STP, etc.). It states a specific resource and scope, but never differentiates itself from close siblings like v2_port_stats, v2_switch_stats, or v2_switches, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no named alternative. The parenthetical '(or one switch)' hints at the scope toggle but does not tell the agent when to prefer this tool over v2_port_stats or v2_switches.

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