config_backup

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

Carries the full disclosure burden despite only readOnlyHint being annotated: it names exactly what is redacted, notes the 'redaction' block, and candidly flags the limits ('pattern-based across five vendor syntaxes ... cannot see multi-line PKI key blocks'). It also warns that include_secrets leaks secrets into the transcript. This is unusually rich behavioral 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?

Front-loaded with the [READ] tag and core purpose, then structured into behavior, caveats, and args. It is longer than strictly necessary and repeats the redaction point somewhat, but every sentence carries substantive 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?

With no output schema, the description still explains the return shape (raw config plus a 'redaction' block with line counts) and covers both parameters and the safety caveats. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: include_secrets is defined as returning the verbatim config with an explicit data-persistence warning, and target is described as the device name with a stated default-when-omitted behavior. Both parameters are fully explained beyond the bare schema types.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Return the device running config') and adds the key modifier ('credential values masked by default'). This separates it cleanly from siblings like config_diff, config_merge, and config_replace, which manipulate rather than read the config.

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?

Gives explicit direction on the include_secrets-vs-CLI decision ('Prefer the CLI's -o <path> flag ... when a human needs the real config'), which is real guidance, not inference. It does not, however, state when to pick this over the sibling read tools (e.g., device_facts) or any exclusions, so it stops short of a full 5.

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