get_link_flaps

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

Annotations already declare this a safe, read-only, open-world, idempotent call. The description adds that it scans a time window for repeated up/down transitions, which is core behavioral context. It does not disclose return format or aggregation details, but those are not strictly required given the annotation coverage.

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: the first states the operation and the question it answers; the second adds diagnostic context. No filler or repetition of schema details.

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 required params, full schema coverage, and clear annotations, an agent knows how to invoke this tool and what question it answers. The lack of an output schema is partly mitigated by the name and 'answers' framing, though return-field detail would improve completeness. Overall sufficient for correct use.

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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter (device, group_id, hours_back, min_transitions, interface_pattern) is already documented with defaults. The description adds the high-level concept of flapping but no parameter-specific syntax beyond the schema. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb ('Identify'), a target resource (interfaces with repeated up/down transitions), and a time window. The question 'which ports are unstable?' clarifies the tool's niche among many get_* siblings. This differentiates it from generic interface-listing tools.

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?

Gives a clear diagnostic scenario ('which ports are unstable?') and lists common root causes to suggest when this tool is relevant. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so the agent must infer the boundary against siblings like get_device_interfaces or get_interface_metrics. Clear context but no explicit when-not.

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