Diff unsaved config

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds substantial context beyond that: it explains the data source (RCI), that the comparison is checksum-independent, that secrets are masked on both sides, and that empty lists mean fully saved. It also discloses that the tool is not wired into write tools.

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 four tightly written sentences, front-loaded with purpose and return semantics. Every sentence adds useful information: source, return structure, secret masking, and usage constraint.

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?

With no input parameters and no output schema, the description fully compensates by explaining what is returned (only_in_running and only_in_startup line lists), how to interpret empty results, and the security behavior around secrets. It is complete for an agent to call and interpret this tool correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The description appropriately focuses on behavior and return values instead.

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 states a specific operation: diffing running-config against startup-config to identify unsaved changes. It names the exact return fields and semantics, making the tool clearly distinguishable from generic config-reading siblings like get_config.

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?

It explicitly says to call it on demand rather than after every write, which is useful usage guidance. However, it does not name alternative sibling tools such as get_config or get_config_state, so the when-to-use-vs-alternatives guidance is incomplete.

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