Get Device Configuration

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating this is a safe read operation. The description adds minimal context by specifying it retrieves 'full configuration' and requires a device name, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'full configuration' entails. With annotations covering safety, this earns a baseline score for adding some value without contradiction.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key action and requirement. It avoids unnecessary words, but could be slightly more structured by explicitly naming the tool's scope or limitations, though it earns high marks for brevity and clarity.

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 has annotations (readOnlyHint) and an output schema (per context signals), the description does not need to explain return values or safety. However, with 1 parameter and 0% schema coverage, the description only partially documents parameters and lacks usage guidelines. It is minimally adequate but has clear gaps in context for a configuration retrieval tool.

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%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description mentions a 'device_name' parameter, which adds meaning for one parameter, but there is 1 parameter total (based on context signals), and it doesn't explain the structure or usage of 'params' as an object with additional properties. This partially compensates but leaves gaps, scoring below the 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Retrieve' and resource 'full configuration for a specific device in Cisco NSO', making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'get_device_state' or 'get_device_platform', which likely retrieve different aspects of device information, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 mentions that it 'Requires a 'device_name' parameter', which is a basic prerequisite, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_device_state' or 'sync_from_device'. There is no explicit when/when-not usage context or named alternatives, leaving the agent with minimal direction.

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