get_switch_stack

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the operation is 'Get' but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, potential errors, or response shape. The output schema exists but the description adds no extra context beyond the basic read operation.

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 minimal and front-loaded with the core action, followed by concise parameter explanations. No redundant words. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simplicity of the tool and the presence of an output schema, this description covers the essential details: it explains all parameters and their sources. It lacks only usage context or error handling notes, which are minor for a simple get operation.

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 0%, so the description must explain each parameter. It does this excellently: host and site formats are specified ('console name, ID, or composite ID (MAC:numericId format)'), and switch_stack_id is tied to list_switch_stacks. This fully compensates for the bare schema.

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 states the exact operation ('Get one switch stack') with a clear resource. It distinguishes itself from list_switch_stacks by implying a single-item retrieval, and explicitly references switch_stack_id from list_switch_stacks, which provides context for the resource type.

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 implies when to use this tool by requiring a switch_stack_id obtained from list_switch_stacks, but it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives or when not to use it. For a straightforward getter, this is acceptable but not explicit.

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