get_mirror_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about read-only semantics, permissions, or scope. It does not even explicitly confirm that this is a read operation rather than a configuration modifier. Only the return values are covered, and that is via the output schema rather than the description.

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?

It is a single front-loaded fragment with no waste, which satisfies conciseness. However, the brevity comes at the cost of substance rather than being efficient expression of meaningful content.

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?

For a zero-parameter getter with an output schema, the description needs only to identify the resource and confirm read intent, and it half-does that. It leaves the agent without any sense of what the mirroring config contains or how it relates to sibling config tools, but the low complexity keeps this from being a severe gap.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline is 4. Schema description coverage is 100% and the empty properties object is unambiguous.

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 is a noun phrase that essentially restates the tool name: 'get_mirror_config' → 'Port mirroring configuration.' It adds only the qualifier 'port' and does not state a verb or retrieval intent. An agent can infer it reads configuration, but that inference comes from the name, not the description.

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 mention of alternatives among the many sibling config getters (get_lag_config, get_loopguard_config, get_stp_config, etc.). The intended context is left entirely to inference.

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