get_logical_port_status

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds significant behavioral details: the 50-port limit, per-port fields returned, and how to interpret health (attached port with realized bindings on at least one transport node). No contradictions.

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 concise with a clear structure: a one-line summary followed by a bulleted list of returned fields and parameter descriptions. No unnecessary text.

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 no output schema, the description fully describes the return values and the 50-port limit. Given the tool's simplicity and good annotations, the description is complete for an agent to use 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description fully explains both parameters: segment_id as 'the segment ID whose ports to inspect, as returned by list_segments' and target as 'optional NSX Manager target name from config. Uses default if omitted.' This adds essential meaning.

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 clearly specifies the verb 'check' and the resource 'realized state of all ports on a segment (first 50 ports)'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_segment_port_for_vm and list_segments by focusing on aggregate port status.

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 explains when to use the tool (to check realized state of segment ports) and provides context on NSX limitations (no single UP/DOWN flag). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to siblings, but the use case is clear.

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