get_lan_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states it returns a config and lists error codes. There is no mention of side effects, permissions, or read-only nature. The error codes add some transparency but not enough for a description carrying full burden.

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, consisting of one sentence and a list of error codes. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. The error code list is lengthy but informative and does not detract from 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 that an output schema exists (as per context signals), the description does not need to detail return values. The error codes provide some completeness. However, the description lacks context about what properties the LanConfig contains or any related configurations. It is minimally complete for a simple get 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?

The tool has no parameters, so the input schema is complete. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. With 0 parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate as the baseline is high.

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 'Returns the current LanConfig' clearly states the action (returns) and resource (LanConfig). It distinguishes from siblings that get other resources (e.g., get_connection, get_system). However, 'LanConfig' is not defined, which slightly reduces clarity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives like put_lan_config or other get_* tools. There is no mention of prerequisites or context, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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