netmiko.list_device_outputs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It describes what the tool does (lists files), how outputs are generated (saved when save_output=True or threshold exceeded), and implies reading is a separate step. There are no contradictions, and for a listing tool this level of transparency is adequate.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, uses an IMPORTANT callout for critical workflow instruction, and every sentence adds value. No wasted words.

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 low complexity (single parameter, fully described in schema), the presence of an output schema, and clear context about when outputs exist and how to proceed after listing, the description is complete enough for an agent to use correctly without confusion.

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%—the single parameter device_or_group is fully described in the schema. The description repeats 'for a device, group, or all devices' but adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already states. With high coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states 'List the output files already saved on disk for a device, group, or all devices.' This provides a specific verb (List) and resource (output files) with clear scope options, distinguishing it effectively from sibling tools like netmiko.read_device_output which reads files.

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 gives explicit guidance: 'If the user message involves network devices, call netmiko.get_metadata FIRST.' It also explains the source of outputs ('save_output=True or exceeded save_threshold') and directs the agent to netmiko.read_device_output for reading. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool, the context is clear enough for an agent to understand its place in a workflow.

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