radius_show

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose one important behavior: the operation is read-only. However, it does not mention return format, whether the displayed configuration is live or saved, or any prerequisites.

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 very short and front-loaded with the key facts: resource and read-only behavior. It contains no filler, though a slightly more explicit verb would make it clearer.

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-only tool the description is minimally viable, but it is thin: it does not specify what parts of RADIUS configuration are shown or how this tool relates to radius_show_local_cer. An agent can infer the basic purpose but gets little additional context.

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 and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter ambiguity for the description to resolve. This matches the baseline for a parameterless tool.

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 identifies the resource ('RADIUS configuration') and explicitly labels it 'read-only', making the intended show operation clear. It does not use an explicit verb and does not distinguish itself from radius_show_local_cer or other show_* siblings.

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 guidance about when to choose this tool over sibling tools such as radius_show_local_cer or other show_* commands. The 'read-only' label implies safe viewing, but no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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