gns3_get_node_config

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only mentions the console method and config_type options. It lacks critical behavioral details: authentication requirements (username/password parameters), whether this is read-only or has side effects, rate limits, or what the output contains. The description doesn't contradict annotations, but is insufficient for a mutation-sensitive context.

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 core purpose, followed by a parameter note. However, the Args section could be integrated more smoothly, and the single-sentence structure is efficient but leaves gaps in completeness.

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 6 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is moderately complete. It covers the tool's purpose and one parameter, but misses authentication details, server interaction context, and doesn't leverage the output schema to explain return values. For a configuration retrieval tool, this is minimal but not entirely inadequate.

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%, so the description must compensate but only explains 'config_type' (with enum values). It ignores the other 5 parameters (project_id, node_id, server_url, username, password), leaving their purposes and formats undocumented. This partial coverage fails to address the majority of input semantics.

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 ('Get device configuration') and method ('via console'), which is specific and distinguishes it from other configuration-related tools like 'gns3_apply_config_template' or 'gns3_bulk_configure_nodes'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'gns3_get_node', which might retrieve node metadata rather than configuration.

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 implies usage for retrieving configuration from Cisco-style devices, but doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'gns3_send_console_commands' for manual configuration access or other getters. No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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