get_running_config_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It only states that it fetches config as text, without mentioning read-only nature, permissions required, rate limits, or any side effects. This is a minimal disclosure for an unannotated tool.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The purpose and implied context are delivered immediately.

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 zero parameters and an output schema, the description is nearly complete for an agent to invoke correctly. It lacks any mention of operational context (e.g., read-only safety), but the output schema covers return values, and the simplicity of the tool keeps the gap 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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description does not need to add parameter meaning and correctly does not.

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 names a specific verb ('Fetch'), resource ('running configuration'), and format ('as text'), which distinguishes it from sibling get_*_config tools that retrieve narrower config sections. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from backup_config or save_running_to_startup, leaving some ambiguity about its unique role.

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 parenthetical '(diffing/auditing)' implies intended use, but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it name alternatives for configuration retrieval. The agent must infer context from the purpose alone.

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