list_innerspace_switches

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

Even without annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavior: it returns switch data 'verbatim, including mac/serial', notes the site_id filter behavior (only matching product siteId), and specifies the accepted host formats (name, ID, or MAC:numericId). This goes beyond a simple 'list' statement and informs the caller about data fidelity and filtering semantics.

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 compact and well-organized: purpose first, then return fields, then parameter definitions. Each line adds necessary information without redundancy. The use of bullet-like lines for params aids quick parsing, and no sentence is wasted.

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 two-parameter list operation with an output schema, the description covers the essential context: what resource is listed, what fields are returned, and how each parameter behaves. It does not discuss pagination, error handling, or prerequisites like the need for the console to have InnerSpace enabled, but given the simplicity and the presence of an output schema, these are minor omissions.

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?

The input schema provides zero parameter descriptions, so the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters. host is defined as 'console name, ID, or composite ID (MAC:numericId format)', giving concrete acceptable values. site_id is explained as an optional UniFi site filter with explicit matching behavior, making the parameter's purpose and effect clear.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List placed switches from a console's InnerSpace floor plans.' It clarifies the API context and explicitly enumerates returned fields (id, name, model, mac, serial, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_innerspace_devices or list_innerspace_access_points by focusing on 'placed switches' within floor plans.

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 strongly implies when to use it (when you need switch placements from floor plans) but does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use it. It does not reference sibling tools like list_innerspace_inventory or explain how to choose among InnerSpace list endpoints. Usage context is implied through the resource focus, not explicit exclusions.

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