run_show_commands

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds that execution happens via SSH and that the return dictionary maps hostname to success or error. However, it does not disclose potential rate limits, command timeout behavior, or how raw output is handled, leaving some behavioral details uncovered.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and structured with Args/Returns sections. Every sentence provides useful information without redundancy, and the formatting makes parameters and return values easy to scan.

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 tool with five parameters and an output schema, the description adequately covers the return structure and filter parameters. It misses explicit note on how multiple filters interact and what 'raw' implies about output formatting, but these are minor given the tool's straightforward nature and the presence of an output schema.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden. It provides meaningful one-line explanations for all parameters: commands, filter_name, filter_hostname, filter_group, and filter_platform. It adds practical context like 'e.g., cisco_ios' for platform filtering, though it does not clarify filter combination logic (AND/OR).

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Execute raw CLI show commands via SSH.' This distinguishes it from siblings like send_config_commands (which writes configs) and run_napalm_getter (which uses a different retrieval mechanism). The 'show commands' qualifier makes the tool's scope explicit.

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 for read-only show commands, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like run_napalm_getter or list_network_devices, nor does it mention any exclusions. The 'show commands' phrasing provides contextual guidance but lacks direct comparison to sibling tools.

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