switch-list-ospf

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 explicitly states '(read-only)', which clarifies that the tool is non-destructive. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as return format, pagination, permissions, or error conditions. The read-only hint is helpful, but the description could be more transparent.

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 very concise—one sentence plus a parenthetical. It is front-loaded with the core action. While it is efficient and not verbose, it could include a brief note about the tool's scope (e.g., 'returns configuration for a specific network') without sacrificing conciseness.

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's simplicity (3 parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is minimally adequate. It identifies the resource and read-only nature, but lacks context on how the fields parameter filters top-level fields or what the default behavior is. An agent might benefit from a short example or note on expected output structure.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter. It only restates the overall purpose. The schema already defines networkId, vrf, and fields with adequate descriptions, so the description's contribution is minimal.

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 'Return' and the resource 'layer 3 OSPF routing configuration', with a parenthetical '(read-only)' that distinguishes it from mutating tools. Among sibling tools like switch-list-staticroutes or switch-list-interfaces, this tool is uniquely for OSPF, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it, nor does it differentiate from other list tools like switch-list-staticroutes or switch-list-multicast. An agent would have to infer usage solely from the tool name and schema.

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