sros_get_config

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the datatype (config), the protocol (gNMI) and the json_ietf encoding, and read semantics are clear. However it says nothing about permissions, error behavior, response size, or what happens with very broad queries such as '/configure (entire config)'.

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 operational sentence is front-loaded, followed by a clearly labeled, scannable list of example paths. Every element earns its place and nothing is padded.

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 two-parameter read tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies what an agent needs to construct a valid call: paths, examples, and encoding. Only the shape of the returned data and error handling are left unaddressed, which is acceptable given no output schema is declared.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real value beyond the schema by showing six concrete YANG path patterns (interfaces, ports, VPRN services, BGP, card slots, and the entire config), which the schema only hints at with a single example.

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?

Names a specific verb (Get) and resource (configuration) plus the exact mechanism (gNMI Get, datatype=config) and encoding (json_ietf). The datatype=config framing implicitly separates it from the state-oriented sibling sros_get_state, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Tells the agent it must supply one or more YANG paths, which implies the intended usage of retrieving device configuration. It never states when to prefer this over sros_get_state, yang_search for path discovery, or the sros_set_* tools for modification, and gives no exclusions.

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