get_version

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 does add the useful hint that this is a 'quick connectivity check', implying a lightweight, likely non-destructive operation. However, it does not disclose permissions, error behavior, or side effects, leaving some gaps.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant or extraneous words. Every word contributes to the tool's purpose and 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?

For a simple tool, the description is mostly adequate, but the unexplained 'config_path' parameter leaves ambiguity for the agent. The output schema exists, so return value details are covered, but the missing parameter semantics and lack of behavioral context make it less than fully complete for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It implicitly explains 'hostname' via 'for a device' but completely fails to explain the optional 'config_path' parameter, which is not self-evident. The description adds no meaningful parameter semantics beyond the schema itself.

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 a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('EOS version string') with scope ('for a device'), and adds a purpose ('quick connectivity check'). This differentiates it from siblings like get_device_facts, which would provide broader device information.

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 provides clear context by labeling the tool as a 'quick connectivity check', implying it is for lightweight verification. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or say when not to use it, so it falls short of full usage guidance.

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