get_segment

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond that: it states the exact return shape ('one dict, not the list envelope'), enumerates returned fields, discloses a truncation boundary ('first 50 ports only'), and warns that attached ports affect deletion. This is rich behavioral disclosure that helps an agent predict consequences.

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 but information-dense. Every sentence serves a purpose: scoping the operation, specifying the return contract, describing output fields, noting the truncation limit, and routing to related tools. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and does not waste words.

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 fully compensates by enumerating return fields and the response style. It covers usage sequence, related tools, deletion implications, and behavioral limits. For a simple read-by-id tool with strong annotations, nothing essential is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents segment_id and target. The description reinforces that segment_id comes from list_segments, but this is largely already present in the schema. It does not add substantial new parameter-level semantics beyond that, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Get full details for one network segment, including its attached ports.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from list_segments by scoping it to a single segment, and the title/name are not merely restated.

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 explicitly says 'Use after list_segments to inspect one segment' and provides direct routing to alternatives: 'For per-port realized state use get_logical_port_status; to change the segment use update_segment.' It also gives a practical precondition involving delete_segment, so an agent knows exactly when to use this tool versus siblings.

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