opn_scan_config

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

Although no annotations are provided, the description fully discloses behavior: downloads full config, parses into sections, detects runtime state, caches results, and that subsequent calls return cached version unless force=True. It also lists the returned keys. This is comprehensive for a tool with no 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?

The description is three short paragraphs, each serving a clear purpose: purpose/initial use, caching behavior, and force usage with sibling recommendation. No redundant sentences. Front-loaded with the main verb.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (full config scan) and the presence of an output schema, the description still details what the return dict contains (firmware, plugins, dhcp, etc.) and notes caching behavior. It also mentions the sibling tool for deeper access. This is complete and leaves no ambiguity.

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 only parameter is 'force' (boolean with default false). The description adds meaning by explaining 'Call with force=True to rescan after manual config changes on the firewall.' This clarifies when and why to use it. Schema coverage is 0% but the description fully compensates.

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?

Description clearly states 'Scan the OPNsense configuration and build a cached inventory.' It specifies the action (scan/build), resource (configuration), and outcome (cached inventory). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by recommending opn_get_config_section for drilling into specific sections.

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?

Explicitly instructs to 'Use this FIRST when starting a new session.' Provides clear guidance on when to use force=True (after manual config changes) and directs to a sibling tool for further drilling: 'Use opn_get_config_section(section) to drill into specific sections.' This covers both when to use and when not to.

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