radius_show_local_cer

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full burden. It states 'read-only', which discloses that the operation does not modify state, but provides no other behavioral details such as output format, authentication requirements, or potential errors. For a simple display tool this is reasonable but still limited compared to what could be disclosed.

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, concise phrase with no redundancy. It front-loads the core resource ('RADIUS local certificates') and includes the behavioral qualifier 'read-only'. Every word earns its place; there is no verbose content.

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 no-parameter, read-only tool, the description is adequate but not fully complete. It clearly identifies the scope (RADIUS local certificates) but does not specify what information is returned (e.g., certificate details, expiry dates) or how it differs from similar tools like 'local8021x_show_local_cer'. Given the large sibling set, more explicit context would help an agent choose correctly, but the simplicity of the tool mitigates the gap.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain. The description does not need to compensate for any schema gaps because the schema (empty properties) fully covers the absence of inputs. A baseline of 4 is appropriate when no parameters exist.

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 states 'RADIUS local certificates (read-only)' which clearly identifies the resource (local certificates) and implies a 'show' or list operation via the 'read-only' qualifier and the tool name. It distinguishes from siblings like 'radius_show' by specifying 'local certificates', but does not explicitly name alternative tools or contrast them.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus others. The description does not mention any conditions, alternatives, or exclusions. An agent has no context to decide if this is the right tool except by assuming the name and description are sufficient, which is risky given several similar 'show' tools exist.

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