list_switches

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states it returns specific fields but omits any behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or potential error conditions. This leaves significant gaps in understanding.

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 extremely concise, using only two sentences without any wasted words. It directly states the action and key returned fields, efficiently communicating the tool's core 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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, straightforward list operation) and the existence of an output schema, the description is nearly complete. However, it could briefly mention that it returns all switches without filters, which is implied but not explicit.

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?

There are no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not need to add parameter information, but it also does not discuss the absence of parameters (e.g., no filters). This is adequate.

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 it lists all switches from Aruba Central, explicitly identifying the resource and system. It distinguishes itself from sibling list tools (e.g., list_aps, list_clients) by specifying 'switches'.

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 versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like list_aps, list_clients, etc., the absence of any usage context or exclusions limits its helpfulness for selection.

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