run_show_command

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses critical behaviors: pipe stages are silently dropped due to PyEZ's NETCONF RPC, and explains the workaround. It does not mention destructive behavior, but 'show' commands are inherently read-only.

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 lengthy but well-structured with clear argument descriptions and important caveats. Every sentence adds value, though some redundancy could be trimmed. It is front-loaded with the core action.

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?

Despite no annotations and an output schema not shown, the description covers all necessary context: parameter details, behavioral quirks (pipe dropping), and alternative tools. It is fully adequate for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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%, so the description must explain all parameters. It does so thoroughly: hostname (must exist in config.ini), command (example given), output_format (text/json/xml with pipe-drop warning), and config_path (empty default). Each parameter adds meaning beyond the schema.

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 begins with 'Run a CLI show command on the device and return output,' which is a specific verb+resource statement. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like run_show_command_batch by mentioning batch usage for filtering.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool vs alternatives, including details about pipe-stage dropping, recommending run_show_command_batch with grep_pattern for filtering, and warning that structured output cannot be combined with batch filtering. This provides clear usage context and exclusions.

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