prepare_config

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns only device metadata and not the configuration, and that node can be an exact or unique partial name. Yet it does not explain side effects (if any), failure modes, or permission needs, leaving gaps.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, node matching rule, and return type/next step. Front-loaded and free of fluff.

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 an output schema exists, the description need not detail return fields. It clearly explains the tool's role relative to get_content, but omits error behavior and when group might be needed. Still, it is sufficient for a simple preparatory 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the node matching behavior already in the schema ('exact name or a unique partial name') but does not add meaning beyond it, such as how group interacts with partial names.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: preparing one device's current configuration for the static get_content resource. It uses a specific verb ('prepare'), identifies the resource ('device's current configuration'), and distinguishes itself from siblings by tying to get_content.

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?

The description provides clear context: it is a preparatory step for get_content and directs users to read the actual configuration from oxidized://config/get_content. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool.

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