get_logical_port_status

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, etc.), the description reveals critical behavioral traits: only the first 50 ports are returned, NSX does not expose a simple UP/DOWN flag, and an attached port with realized bindings on at least one transport node is considered healthy. It also explains what fields are returned and when to escalate to get_transport_node_status, adding substantial operational context.

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 efficiently front-loaded with the purpose, then usage context, then return details, then fallback advice, followed by a clean Args block. Each sentence conveys distinct value without redundancy, and the structure makes it easy to scan for key operational points.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description comprehensively explains the return payload (admin_state, attachment, realized_bindings_count, transport_node_ids) and how to interpret health. It also covers prerequisites, limitations, and related tools, making the tool fully self-contained for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 only parameter names and types with no descriptions (coverage 0%). The description's Args section compensates fully: 'segment_id: Segment ID whose ports to inspect, as returned by list_segments' and 'target: NSX Manager target from config (default if omitted).' This gives the agent everything needed to populate parameters correctly.

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 '[READ] Check realized state of all ports on a segment (first 50 ports).' This gives a specific verb, resource, and a key limitation. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by referencing get_segment_port_for_vm and delete_segment, clarifying its unique role in the workflow.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use this after get_segment_port_for_vm has told you which segment a VM sits on, or before delete_segment to see whether ports are still attached.' It also names an alternative: 'If bindings are missing everywhere, check get_transport_node_status.' This clearly tells the agent when to use this tool versus others.

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