Configuration state

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: unsaved changes are lost on reboot, and unsavedChanges being null means 'unknown', not 'saved'. This is valuable context that an agent needs to interpret results correctly.

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?

Two sentences, each earning its place. The core question is front-loaded, and the special null-case clarification is placed last without padding.

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 zero-parameter, read-only state tool, the description covers what is returned, a critical edge case, and a consequence of unsaved changes. It would benefit from mentioning the fail-safe timer state more explicitly or noting the response structure, but overall it is nearly 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?

The tool has no parameters, and the schema is already complete. With zero parameters, the description need not compensate for schema gaps, so the baseline of 4 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?

The description clearly identifies the resource (running configuration state) and the specific information returned: unsaved changes, last changer/time, and fail-safe timer status. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_system_info or get_connection_status, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'gets'.

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 implies when to use this tool (when wanting configuration state details) but provides no explicit guidance about alternatives or when not to use it. There is clear context about the info it provides, but no exclusions or sibling differentiation.

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