gns3_send_console_commands

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions Telnet as the protocol and hints at device-specific behaviors (e.g., 'Cisco' for config mode), but lacks critical details like error handling, command execution order, timeout behaviors beyond boot, or whether this is a read-only or mutating operation. For an 11-parameter tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 well-structured with a clear opening sentence followed by a bullet-point Args section, making it easy to scan. It's appropriately sized for an 11-parameter tool, though the Args section could be more complete to cover all parameters without adding unnecessary verbosity.

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 (11 parameters, no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but with an output schema), the description is partially adequate. The Args section helps, but it doesn't fully compensate for the lack of annotations and incomplete parameter coverage. The output schema existence reduces the need to describe return values, but behavioral and usage gaps remain.

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 description provides a helpful Args section explaining 6 parameters (commands, wait_for_boot, boot_timeout, enter_config_mode, save_config, enable_password), which adds significant value beyond the schema's 0% description coverage. However, it omits explanations for the other 5 parameters (project_id, node_id, server_url, username, password), leaving gaps in understanding their roles and requirements.

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 ('Send commands') and target ('to a node's console via Telnet'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'gns3_apply_config_template' or 'gns3_bulk_configure_nodes' which might also involve sending commands, leaving some ambiguity about when this specific tool is preferred.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites like needing a running node or compare it to sibling tools like 'gns3_apply_config_template' for configuration tasks, leaving the agent to guess based on context.

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