zyxel_show_running_config

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'Display' clearly implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose additional behavioral details such as output format or whether the optional 'section' parameter affects the display. It is adequate but not rich.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete enough. It explains the tool's basic behavior, though it does not explicitly mention the return value or possible section values. The simplicity of the tool reduces the need for more detail.

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 fully describes the single optional parameter ('section' with 'Specific configuration section to show (optional)'). The tool description adds no further parameter context, so it does not exceed the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Display') and resource ('current running configuration'), clearly distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'zyxel_show_startup_config' by the word 'running'.

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—it's for showing the active configuration—but does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives like 'zyxel_show_startup_config' or 'zyxel_show_version'. No exclusions or alternative guidance is given.

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