get_segment

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, it discloses the return format ('one dict, not the list envelope'), a critical limit ('first 50 ports only'), and the operational implication ('cannot be deleted — check port_count before calling delete_segment'). This adds substantial context not available in structured fields.

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 front-loaded with '[READ]' and a clear purpose, then efficiently packs usage, return details, and related tools without redundancy. Every sentence serves a 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 no output schema, the description fully covers return fields, pagination behavior, and sibling tool relationships. It is self-sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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 description explains segment_id as 'final component of /infra/segments/<id>, as returned by list_segments' and target as 'NSX Manager target from config (default if omitted).' This provides meaning beyond the bare schema fields and compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 explicitly states 'Get full details for one network segment, including its attached ports,' which clearly identifies the verb, resource, and scope. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool list_segments by specifying 'one segment' versus 'list.'

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?

It provides explicit guidance: 'Use after list_segments to inspect one segment' and contrasts with get_logical_port_status and update_segment. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use context.

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