get_stp_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. It discloses no read-only nature, permissions, side effects, or retrieval behavior. It adds nothing beyond the resource label.

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 a single noun fragment. It is short but under-specified rather than well-structured, omitting the action and any useful context. It is not verbose, but it is too sparse to earn a higher conciseness score.

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 parameterless read tool with an output schema, the resource label may be minimally sufficient to identify what is returned. However, the description still omits the retrieval action and any usage context, leaving gaps that the schema and annotations do not fill.

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. There are no parameter semantics to explain, and the empty schema is fully self-describing.

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 the resource (Spanning Tree global configuration) but omits a verb, so it does not explicitly state what the tool does. The tool name supplies the action, but the description alone is a noun phrase. It does distinguish the resource from siblings like loopguard or LLDP configuration.

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?

No when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternatives are given. The agent receives no routing guidance among the many get_*_config siblings.

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