collect_tech_support

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

The description discloses that the output is large and the operation takes over 30 seconds, which is useful behavioral context beyond annotations (there are none). However, it does not explain what happens with the output (e.g., return vs file), error conditions, or side effects, so transparency is partial.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the action. No wasted words.

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?

The description captures the core action but leaves the optional config_path parameter unexplained and provides no guidance on usage compared to sibling tools. The output schema may cover return values, but the missing parameter semantics and lack of usage clarity make it incomplete.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the parameters. 'Hostname' is implied as the target device via 'from an EOS device', but 'config_path' is entirely unexplained. The description adds minimal semantic value for parameters.

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 verb 'collect' and the resource 'show tech-support from an EOS device', and adds context about large output and duration. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like run_command, though the size/time hint implies differentiation.

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 parenthetical '(large output, 30+ seconds)' provides context about when this tool is appropriate—for heavy outputs—but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or any exclusion criteria. No alternatives are mentioned.

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