list_radius_servers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add one genuinely useful behavioral fact — that secrets are redacted in the output — which goes beyond the schema. It omits whether this is strictly read-only and any pagination/result-size behavior, so it's only partially complete for a no-annotation tool.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with a compact parenthetical that discloses return fields. It is efficient; only the lack of any usage clause keeps it from a 5.

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 straightforward read-only list tool with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers what is queried and what comes back (including the redaction caveat). Sufficient for an agent to call it correctly, though noting read-only semantics or scope would round it out.

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%, with device_id and the optional vdom both documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('List RADIUS servers') and even enumerates returned fields (addresses, auth type, NAS IP), so an agent can tell it apart from the nearby list_ldap_servers/list_tacacs_servers siblings by name alone. No explicit sibling routing is given, which keeps it at 4.

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?

Usage is implied by the read-only 'List' verb and the required device_id, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or statement of alternatives (e.g., use list_ldap_servers for LDAP directory configs). Adequate but leaves the agent to infer.

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