vyos_docs_read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool fetches raw RST content and is a read-only operation. However, it lacks details on error handling (e.g., if path is invalid), network dependencies, or any potential side effects. The description is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 extremely concise, consisting of three short sentences plus an 'Args:' line. Every sentence adds value: purpose, action, usage recommendation, and parameter clarification. There is no fluff or redundancy.

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 simplicity (one required parameter, output schema exists), the description covers the essential aspects. It mentions the sibling search tool and the expected path format. It does not describe the output format, but since an output schema exists, that is not a critical omission. A note on error scenarios would improve completeness.

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 input schema provides no description for the 'path' parameter (0% coverage). The description adds meaning by stating it is a 'Doc path' and provides an example ('docs/configuration/firewall/groups.rst'). This compensates for the schema gap, but more clarity on allowed path formats or constraints would be beneficial.

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 tool reads a VyOS documentation page by fetching raw RST content. It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling vyos_docs_search by directing users to use that tool for path discovery. The verb 'Read' and resource 'VyOS documentation page' are specific and unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance to use vyos_docs_search to find the path first, establishing a clear workflow. It does not explicitly list when not to use this tool, but the context of sibling tools makes the usage scenario clear. A slight improvement would be to mention scenarios where reading is not appropriate.

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