sysknife_netplan_get_config

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the concrete source path (/etc/netplan/) and confirms no parameters. However, it does not disclose whether elevated privileges are needed to read those files, nor what form the config comes back in (raw YAML vs parsed), so it adds only modest context beyond the annotations.

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?

Single dense sentence, front-loaded with the action and the resource. Slightly weakened by repetition ('Read-only SysKnife action' at the start and 'read-only' mid-sentence) and by awkward escaped quoting.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of saying what comes back, and it never does — the agent cannot tell whether it receives YAML text, a parsed object, or a diff of files. The source path and sibling distinction are present, but the return-shape gap leaves it only adequate.

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?

Zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case; the description correctly reinforces 'no params' so the agent knows not to synthesize any.

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 ('read the SAVED network configuration: the netplan YAML in /etc/netplan/') and explicitly contrasts itself with GetNetworkStatus. An agent can tell exactly what this returns versus the live-state sibling without opening a schema.

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?

Names the alternative tool and the condition that selects it ('as opposed to GetNetworkStatus which reports live interface state'), plus the domain caveat that on Ubuntu this is what 'the network config' means. Explicit when-to-use-this-vs-that guidance.

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