uci_show

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action as 'Show' which implies a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state that no changes are made, require permissions, or describe output format. This lack of explicit side-effect disclosure is a transparency gap.

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 two short sentences, each adding distinct information: purpose and scope variations. No filler or redundancy.

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?

The tool has 3 optional params, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the input scope but does not specify the output format (e.g., plaintext vs JSON) or any return value semantics, which an agent would need for parsing. Given the simplicity of a show command, the omission is notable but does not make the description incomplete for basic use.

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?

The schema already provides 100% parameter descriptions, so the description does not need to add much. It does add a conceptual hierarchy (config -> section -> option) that reinforces parameter relationships, but the schema already covers this. Overall, the description adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 identifies the action ('Show UCI configuration') and the resource scope (all configs, specific config, section/option). It implicitly differentiates from sibling UCI mutation tools, but does not explicitly differentiate from uci_get, so it is clear but not explicitly distinguished.

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 implies usage scenarios through the capability statement ('can show all configs, a specific config, or a specific section/option') but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. There is no mention of when to prefer uci_show over uci_get or other siblings, making this implied usage.

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