snmp_get

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (dict with value and type) but omits other behavioral traits like error handling, timeout behavior, or limits on OID count. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Two concise sentences: the first states the action and input formats, the second describes the output. No redundant information, every part earns its place.

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?

For a simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers input format and output structure. It lacks details on error cases, OID limits, or default behavior, but is fairly complete for its complexity.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description adds significant value. It explains that host is the target and oids_in is a list of OIDs, clarifying acceptable formats (numeric and symbolic). This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it could detail the host format.

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 it fetches one or more OIDs via a single SNMP GET-Request, specifying acceptable formats (numeric and symbolic). This differentiates from sibling tools like snmp_walk but doesn't explicitly contrast with them, keeping it just short of a 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use snmp_get versus alternative sibling tools (e.g., snmp_walk, snmp_bulk_walk). The description does not mention prerequisites or contexts where this tool is preferred, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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