get_running_config

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It reveals a key behavioral trait: the privilege level required varies by OS, signaling potential permission failures. This is valuable context beyond the schema. It does not detail side effects, but 'show' implies read-only.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the exact command. The second sentence efficiently adds platform nuance. No wasted words.

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 simple tool with an output schema, the description covers the purpose and an important permission caveat. However, it omits parameter guidance and doesn't differentiate from the sibling run_show_command, leaving small gaps. Overall, it is sufficient for a basic getter 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description never mentions the 'device' parameter. The schema's title 'Device' is minimal, but the description adds no information about accepted formats, allowed values, or how to specify the target. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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's purpose: 'Show the running configuration' and even names the exact command 'show running-config'. This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_version or get_interfaces.

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?

It provides implied usage ('To get the running config, use this'), and adds platform-specific account requirements (privilege-15 on IOS/XE vs read-only on NX-OS). However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over the generic run_show_command or other alternatives, so exclusions are missing.

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