get_device_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It correctly states 'read-only', but does not mention authentication requirements, error handling, rate limits, or impact on the device. The read-only claim is the only behavioral insight, which is sufficient but not comprehensive.

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 extremely concise: one sentence for purpose plus two bullet-point parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value; no filler. The main action is front-loaded.

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 and the presence of an output schema (which likely documents return structure), the description is nearly complete. It covers the core operation and parameter semantics. It omits potential error scenarios or prerequisites, but for a read-only retrieval tool, the missing details are minor.

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 input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), but the tool description compensates by explaining each parameter: 'device' as hostname, 'section' with examples ('bgp', 'ospf') and behavior (returns full config if empty). This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare types and titles.

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 the resource 'running configuration of a network device'. It explicitly marks the operation as 'read-only', which distinguishes it from mutating siblings like restart_interface. The domain (network device) is precise.

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 explains parameters (device and section) and their behavior (e.g., section examples, default full config), but does not provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like compare_baseline or check_interface. Usage context is implied by the tool's purpose, but no when-not or alternative references are given.

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