sros_get_state

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 protocol and datatype (gNMI Get, datatype=state), implying a read-only operation, and the encoding (json_ietf). It does not cover authentication, error behavior on bad paths, or session requirements.

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 operation statement is front-loaded in one dense sentence, followed by a clearly labeled example block. Every element earns its place and nothing is repeated, though the example list is longer than strictly necessary.

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 no output schema, the description covers mechanism, encoding, and path format well. It could say more about what the returned state payload looks like, but the essential information for a correct call is present.

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 genuine value with five realistic SROS state path examples that go beyond the schema's single generic example. The 'name' (device session) parameter is left to the schema, which is acceptable.

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+resource ('Get operational state from Nokia SR OS') and pins the mechanism (gNMI Get, datatype=state), which naturally separates it from the config-oriented sibling sros_get_config. It never names a sibling explicitly, so it stops at clear-but-undifferentiated.

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?

'Provide one or more YANG paths' is an input instruction, not usage guidance. There is no statement of when to prefer this over sros_get_config or yang_search, nor any prerequisites. Usage is only implied by the 'state vs config' resource framing.

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