Get Device Configuration

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds that it retrieves 'full configuration' and requires a 'device_name' parameter, which provides some context beyond annotations, but it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, or response format, limiting behavioral insight.

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 brief and front-loaded with the main purpose, using only one sentence without unnecessary details. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating usage notes, but it remains efficient and to the point.

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 complexity (1 parameter, nested objects in input, output schema exists), the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose and required parameter, but with 0% schema coverage and no output details, it relies heavily on the output schema and annotations, leaving gaps in full understanding.

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 input schema is generic (an object with additionalProperties). The description only mentions that a 'device_name' parameter is required, but it does not specify the parameter's format, constraints, or how it maps to the schema, failing to compensate for the low 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 action ('Retrieve') and resource ('full configuration for a specific device in Cisco NSO'), making the purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from its siblings (e.g., get_device_state, get_device_platform), which would be needed for a score of 5.

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 like get_device_state or sync_from_device. It only mentions a required parameter without context about appropriate scenarios or exclusions, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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