ensp_get_running_config

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 the read-only probing role and the key failure mode (inconsistent command sets across images/VRP versions causing 'Error: Unrecognized command'). It doesn't state permissions or rate/response-size behavior, but the read-only semantics are unambiguous and output format is covered by the output schema.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first line, followed by clearly numbered workflow steps. The steps 3–4 drift slightly into general configuration methodology rather than this tool's behavior, which is a minor amount of content beyond what the tool itself needs.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description supplies purpose, workflow, prerequisites, and failure modes. The only real gap is the unaddressed session identifier parameter, which is left to the schema name alone.

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% and the single parameter (session_id_or_name) is never mentioned in the description. The parameter name is reasonably self-descriptive, but the description adds no meaning (e.g. whether it accepts an id, a name, or both), so it sits at the minimum-viable baseline.

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 specific verb and resource ('获取设备当前运行配置') and even names the underlying VRP command (display current-configuration). It is clearly distinguishable from ensp_get_device_info (model/VRP version) and the send/verify siblings by its read-the-existing-config role.

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?

Explicitly frames itself as a mandatory pre-configuration probe and provides a numbered workflow with the alternative steps: use ensp_get_device_info first, then this tool, then ensp_send_command / ensp_verify_interfaces to validate. When-to-use and which siblings to pair with are both spelled out.

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