cisco_version

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get' and the 'show version' reference imply a safe read operation and the description discloses what is returned (version, hostname, uptime), but it says nothing about required credentials, target reachability, or failure behavior.

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 sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and appends the exact CLI command as a clarifying cue. Nothing is wasted or 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?

Output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the description still names them helpfully. For a one-parameter read tool this is essentially complete; only the absence of any usage or behavioral context keeps it from a 5.

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% – the single 'device' parameter is fully documented in the schema as the inventory router/switch name. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so the 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?

Specific verb 'Get' plus resource 'Cisco device's software version, hostname, and uptime', even quoting the underlying 'show version' command. It's clear what the tool returns, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like cisco_inventory, uptime, or kernel_version.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives such as cisco_interfaces or cisco_inventory that overlap on Cisco device introspection. Usage is only implied by the resource name.

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