getRadiusProxyConfig

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it adds only the word "global" (controller-wide scope rather than per-site). It says nothing about required permissions, whether settings are inherited or override site values, or what an empty/disabled result looks like — meaningful gaps for a config-inspection tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the returned fields called out. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description should say more about the shape of the returned configuration or its scope semantics. It covers what is fetched at a high level, which is the minimum viable, but an agent still cannot anticipate the response structure.

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% for the single optional customHeaders parameter, which the schema already documents thoroughly (including an example and "rarely needed"). The description adds no parameter detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb ("Get") and a specific resource ("global RADIUS proxy configuration"), and it names the payload contents (proxy enabled state and server settings). It does not differentiate from nearby config getters, but none of the listed siblings overlap this resource.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. An agent can infer this is a read of current settings, but nothing tells it when to prefer this over, say, a dot1x or ACL config getter when diagnosing RADIUS-related authentication problems.

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