cvcue_list_switches

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

No annotations exist, so the description bears the full burden, and it does disclose a non-obvious behavioral trait: results cover only switches seen over AP LLDP uplinks, meaning directly-attached or unuplinked switches will not appear. It does not state read-only semantics explicitly or describe pagination/aggregation behavior, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 dense sentences with zero filler, and the critical qualifier (LLDP-discovered via AP uplinks) is front-loaded before the field list. Every clause carries information the agent can act on.

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 three-parameter read-only inventory tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description compensates well by enumerating the returned fields and the discovery mechanism. The remaining gap is that location scoping and paging semantics are left entirely to the schema.

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 start, page_size and location_id are already fully documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema — notably it never mentions that location_id narrows the inventory to a location subtree, nor that the counts are per page.

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 definition pairs the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'switches' and immediately qualifies the data source ('discovered via AP uplinks (LLDP)'), which distinguishes it from sibling inventory tools like cvcue_list_aps or cvcue_list_radios. It also enumerates the fields returned (name, vendor, chassis id, AP/client counts, PoE and link-speed distribution), so an agent knows exactly what this call yields.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource name and the LLDP provenance, but there is no explicit 'use this when…' statement and no exclusion of alternatives. Since no sibling tool covers switches, the lack of a named alternative is a smaller gap, but the agent still has to infer when this is the right call versus a general AP or location listing.

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