run_napalm_getter

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already ensures safety, and the description adds useful behavioral context by enumerating common getters and stating the return format (structured per-host data). It does not contradict annotations and provides enough detail for a read-only operation.

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 well-structured with clear sections for getter examples, arguments, and returns. Every sentence earns its place, and the bullet list of common getters is highly useful without being verbose.

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 tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what getters can be used, how to filter hosts, and what the return value looks like. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining each parameter (getters, getters_options, and all four filters). It distinguishes filter_name vs filter_hostname vs filter_group vs filter_platform, though getters_options remains somewhat vague.

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 executes NAPALM getters on network devices, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on NAPALM getters (structured data) rather than raw commands or config backup.

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 use for retrieving structured device data (facts, interfaces, etc.) but does not explicitly compare with alternatives like run_show_commands or backup_device_configs. There is no 'use this when' or 'instead of' guidance, leaving the choice to the agent.

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