get_lag

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention any side effects, permissions, or what the response contains. Although 'Get' implies a read-only operation, the lack of any behavioral detail leaves significant gaps.

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, with no filler. It front-loads the main purpose and then explains the three parameters in a compact, scannable way. Every word adds value.

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 and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential identification of parameters adequately. However, it lacks usage context and behavioral transparency, which prevents it from being fully complete for an agent needing to decide when to invoke it.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description provides meaningful guidance for each parameter: host format (console name, ID, or composite ID), site (name or ID), and lag_id (UUID from list_lags). This goes well beyond the bare schema and fully compensates for the schema gap.

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 'Get one Link Aggregation Group' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating a fetch operation for a single entity. It distinguishes from sibling list_lags by emphasizing 'one' and even references list_lags as the source for lag_id, reinforcing the difference.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the parameter description implies usage (needs a lag_id from list_lags), there is no statement about conditions or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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