get_sdwan_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Show' implies a read, but it never states that explicitly, nor does it mention required device access/permissions, whether the vdom scoping changes results, or how the configuration is returned. For a tool with zero structured safety metadata this is thin.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the parenthetical contents list is efficient. It is arguably too terse rather than too long, so the only deduction is for missing rather than wasted text.

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?

The description sketches the returned sections, which helps given there is no output schema, but omits vdom scoping semantics and the relationship to the overlapping sibling tools. Adequate but with clear gaps for an unannotated tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both device_id and vdom are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameter behavior, such as what happens when vdom is null (the default) — baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Show') and resource ('SD-WAN configuration') and enumerates the sub-sections returned (zones, members, health checks, rules). This separates it from granular siblings like list_sdwan_members and list_sdwan_health_checks, though it doesn't explicitly acknowledge that relationship.

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 on when to use this aggregate view versus the dedicated list_sdwan_members and list_sdwan_health_checks tools, which overlap directly with the returned content. The agent is left to infer that this is the bundled option.

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