netmiko.send_show_command

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses that the command is validated against an allow/deny list, that rejections are expected and not a bug, that syntax is per-platform across 177 base device types, and that probes are audited. This covers behavioral traits beyond the basic function.

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 fairly long but well-structured, with a clear first sentence stating purpose, followed by an important prerequisite note, rejection behavior, and platform syntax warnings. Every section earns its place given the complexity, though it could be slightly more concise.

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 complexity (4 parameters, 177 device types, output schema exists), the description is remarkably complete. It covers prerequisites, platform variations, rejection handling, and flag usage. The output schema exists, so return values do not need to be described. No gaps in essential context.

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 100%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds value by reinforcing the need for full, un-abbreviated commands and exact device names, and by providing context about platform-specific syntax. While much is already in the schema, the additional warnings about abbreviations and device type checking justify a 4.

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 explicitly states 'Connect to one network device over SSH and run a single show command', providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like netmiko.send_show_command_to_group and netmiko.list_devices by focusing on a single device and show command.

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 provides clear when-to-use guidance: call netmiko.get_metadata FIRST for network device queries, check device_type with netmiko.list_devices first, and warns against probing variants or retrying rejected commands. It explicitly states that rejections are not bugs and must be reported to the user.

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