Get a Device's Configuration

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context: output is plain text, running is the default source, and the tool supports comparing the two configs. It says nothing about config size limits, truncated output, or behavior when a device has no startup config, which are the kinds of operational details the annotations do not supply.

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?

Front-loaded with the core behavior in the first sentence, followed by compact use cases. The two example quotes largely restate the use cases already listed, adding slight redundancy, but the whole thing stays short and scannable.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required, and the description correctly covers source selection and default behavior. What's missing is guidance on the relationship to adjacent tools (save_device_configuration, erase_device_configuration, send_cli_command), which matters given the crowded sibling set. For a simple two-parameter read tool, it is otherwise sufficient to call correctly.

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 50%: `name` is documented in the schema, but `source` has only an enum and default with no description. The description compensates by explaining that running-config is the default and startup-config is the alternative, which fills the exact gap in the schema. It adds no further detail on `name` formatting, though the schema already handles that.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Return a Cisco device's running-config (default) or startup-config as text.' The default behavior is called out explicitly, so an agent knows what happens when `source` is omitted. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings like save_device_configuration or send_cli_command, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Gives concrete usage contexts (reviewing a lab, comparing running vs startup, exporting) plus two worked example requests that map natural language to the call. There is no explicit 'when not to use' or pointer to an alternative sibling such as send_cli_command or save_device_configuration, so it stops short of a 5.

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