snmp_get

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 the tool's read-only nature (polling/retrieving) and a dependency (pysnmp). However, it does not address error handling, timeout behavior, or potential side effects, which are relevant for a network polling tool.

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 two short paragraphs and a bullet-like arg list. Purpose is front-loaded. It includes essential setup info (pysnmp) but avoids redundancy. Slight improvement could be made by integrating the arg descriptions more succinctly.

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 no annotations, an output schema exists (not shown here), and 3 parameters, the description covers the tool's core function and parameter semantics. It lacks details on output format, but the output schema likely covers that. It is complete enough for a straightforward SNMP GET tool.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by explaining each parameter: 'device' as defined in devices.yaml, 'oids' as comma-separated OIDs (with default), and 'community' as the SNMPv2c community string (with default). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's bare fields.

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 tool retrieves specific SNMP MIB values by polling OIDs. It uses specific verbs ('Poll', 'Retrieves') and identifies the resource (SNMP OIDs from network devices). The name 'snmp_get' and differentiation from siblings like 'snmp_walk' is clear.

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 that it accepts OID names or dotted notation and requires pysnmp, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like snmp_walk or other SNMP tools. The usage context is implied but not explicitly compared to siblings.

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