get_config

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Retrieve,' implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm that it makes no changes, mention required permissions, or explain the effect of the optional config_path parameter. The absence of any side-effect or safety context leaves the agent with incomplete behavioral understanding.

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 concise sentence with no filler or redundant information. It front-loads the core action and resource, achieving high conciseness, though its brevity lacks structural elements like parameter hints or usage context.

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 the presence of an optional config_path parameter and sibling tools for related operations, the description is under-specified. It does not explain the return structure (even though an output schema exists, the description adds no context about what the retrieved config contains), nor does it clarify how to invoke the tool correctly for different scenarios. The agent would need to infer too much.

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 input schema has zero description coverage for its two parameters (hostname and config_path), and the tool description does not mention or explain either parameter. The agent has no guidance on what config_path means or how it modifies the retrieval, making the parameters effectively opaque.

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: 'Retrieve the running-config from an EOS device.' It uses a specific verb ('retrieve') and resource ('running-config'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_config_diff (which handles diffs) and list_config_sessions (which lists sessions).

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_config_diff, run_command, or push_config. The description does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or specific use cases beyond the basic retrieval action.

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