netconf_get_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool uses NETCONF, returns structured XML, and requires the ncclient library. However, it does not mention authentication, error handling, or what happens if NETCONF is not enabled on the device, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 only 4 lines, front-loaded with the purpose, and every sentence is informative. No fluff or repetition.

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?

Given the tool has 2 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the main aspects: purpose, parameters, protocol, and output format. It could mention that NETCONF must be enabled on the device, but this is a minor omission.

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%, meaning the schema provides no descriptions. The description compensates fully by explaining both 'device' (name from devices.yaml) and 'source' (datastore options: running, candidate, startup) with clear context.

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 states the verb 'Retrieve', the resource 'device configuration', and the protocol 'NETCONF'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'run_command' (SSH CLI) and 'netconf_get_operational' by explicitly stating it returns structured XML/YANG configuration data.

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 implies usage context: use this tool when you want structured configuration data via NETCONF, not SSH CLI scraping. While it does not explicitly exclude cases or name alternatives, sibling tool names like 'run_command' and 'netconf_capabilities' provide context. It also documents the device and source parameters.

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