hcl_inspect_ports

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, and the description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: the default-to-all-staged-devices scope and the fact that only_linked=true will be rejected because link inventory is unverified. That error-path disclosure is valuable. It stops short of describing the shape of the returned state or the staging-vs-running distinction.

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?

Two compact sentences with the behavioral default stated first and the constraint second; there is no filler. It is terse to the point of cryptic in places, but nothing could be cut without losing information.

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 four-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description omits both required parameters and any hint of the returned interface state. An agent could not form a correct call from this text plus the schema alone.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only addresses two of four parameters and only partially: `device` (empty = all staged) and `only_linked` (rejected when true). The two REQUIRED parameters, `topology` and `project_path`, are never mentioned, leaving an agent with no format expectations for the mandatory inputs.

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?

It does use a concrete verb ("Read") and a resource ("interface state"), but "bound running-device interface state" is jargon-heavy and hard to parse, and it never names a sibling (e.g. hcl_bridge_status, hcl_read_vlans) to distinguish itself. An agent gets the rough idea that this reads port/interface state but not cleanly how it differs from the other read tools.

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 gives one scoping rule (empty device inspects all staged devices) and one hard exclusion (only_linked=true is rejected), which is real guidance. However, it never says when to use this instead of the many neighboring inspection/read tools, so selection among siblings is left to inference.

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