Get SwOS Config

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

Annotations cover safety (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds substantive behavior: exact export contents, the explicit exclusion of the SNMP community, and the YAML output relationship to apply_swos_config. This goes well beyond the structured hints.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the action and output format, followed by contents, exclusion, and relationship to the apply tool. Every sentence carries 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 read-only export tool with no output schema, the description explains the return document's contents and its role as apply_swos_config input. Annotations cover safety and the schema covers the only parameter, leaving no material gap.

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 100% and the sole parameter routerId is documented in the schema with default-router behavior. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (Export) and resource (SwOS switch configuration) plus the output format (YAML). It enumerates contents and names the related sibling apply_swos_config, letting an agent distinguish it from status/backup 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?

Clearly positions the tool as a read/diff backup and as the input format for apply_swos_config, which tells the agent when it is useful. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives such as save_swos_backup, so it stops short of a 5.

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