show

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden and does disclose two notable traits: the command must be on an allow-list, and output is not TextFSM-parsed. It does not state what happens when a command is rejected, whether this is strictly read-only, or any permission prerequisites, which leaves meaningful gaps for a mutation-adjacent CLI passthrough.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and ended with the qualifying parenthetical that carries the most decision-relevant information. Nothing redundant.

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?

The tool is simple (one required parameter) and an output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. The only real omission is the unknown allow-list contents, which an agent would need before it can confidently supply a command.

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 coverage is 0% — the single 'command' parameter has only a title, no description. The description partially compensates by implying the value is a show subcommand drawn from an allow-list, but it gives no syntax example, no list of accepted values, and no format expectations.

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?

States a concrete action ('Run an allow-listed show command on the switch') plus a scope qualifier ('no TextFSM parsing'), so an agent knows this returns raw CLI output rather than parsed data. It stops short of naming a sibling to contrast with, but the parenthetical does most of the differentiation work against parsed-overview tools.

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?

Usage is only implied: use this when you want an unparsed show command. The 'allow-listed' constraint hints at a restricted command set but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of when to prefer a parsed sibling such as port_overview, and no mention of how to discover which commands are permitted.

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