cisco_inventory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only listing and discloses the shape of the data (component type plus PID/VID/serial), but says nothing about permissions, device-unreachable behavior, or whether it can be slow — reasonable gaps for a simple read, but not rich disclosure.

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: verb, resource, component examples, returned identifiers, and the underlying command. No filler and nothing buried.

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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema (so return values need no explanation), the description covers purpose, scope, and output fields adequately. Only the lack of explicit routing guidance against cisco_version/cisco_interfaces keeps it short of complete.

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?

One parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('the inventory router/switch name'), so the schema already does the work. The description adds only that the device is a Cisco device whose hardware is enumerated; no format or naming-convention detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 per coverage rule.

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 (List) and resource (hardware components) with concrete examples — chassis, modules, PSUs — and explicitly names the fields returned (PID/VID/serial number). The parenthetical 'show inventory' anchors it against siblings like cisco_interfaces, cisco_version, and cisco_logs at a glance.

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 domain command it mimics, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, and no sibling is named as an alternative. An agent can infer this is the hardware-inventory read versus a software-version or interface read, but must infer it.

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