run_show_commands

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that commands stop on first failure, that pipe stages are silently dropped regardless of output_format due to PyEZ's NETCONF mechanism, and explains the default behavior for config_path. This is comprehensive behavioral disclosure.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections and front-loaded purpose sentence. While slightly long, every sentence adds value. Could be slightly tighter, but overall effective.

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 that an output schema exists (context signal), the description does not need to cover return values. It covers main behavior, parameter details, limitations, and when to use alternatives. Complete for a tool of this complexity.

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%, but the description adds full meaning for all 4 parameters: hostname (target device requirement), commands (list of CLI commands), output_format (text/json/xml with pipe-dropping caveat), and config_path (empty string = default search). This goes well beyond the bare 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 clearly states the tool runs multiple CLI show commands in a single session. It explicitly distinguishes from siblings like run_show_command and run_show_command_batch, which address single-command or alternative filtering scenarios.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: use it when you want to run multiple commands and stop on first failure; use run_show_command per command to ignore individual errors. Also explains limitations with pipe stages and suggests client-side filtering, with note that run_show_command_batch's grep_pattern is not a drop-in workaround.

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