extract_node_config

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the prerequisite (node started/booted/converged) but does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or what happens if the node is not in the required state. It adds some behavioral context but omits non-mutating confirmation and side effects.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the action and a key requirement without any filler. It is fully efficient and earns its place.

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 retrieval tool with an output schema, the description covers the core action and a prerequisite. However, it omits a clear comparison to the sibling get_node_config and does not explicitly confirm non-destructiveness, leaving some ambiguity in a context with similar tools.

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?

Schema coverage is 0% and the description does not explain lab_id or node_id. The parameter names and titles are self-explanatory, but the description adds no additional meaning, leaving the agent to rely solely on naming conventions without further elaboration.

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 a specific action: 'Pull the current running configuration off a booted, converged node and return it'. It identifies the resource (configuration) and the state prerequisite (booted, converged), and distinguishes from sibling get_node_config by emphasizing the 'running' 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?

The description provides a clear prerequisite ('Requires the node to be started'), giving guidance on when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when to avoid it, so it falls short of a 5, but the condition offers practical usage context.

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