Read running config

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description goes beyond that by disclosing a non-obvious behavioral trait: secrets (md5/nthash/psk/password/private-key) are masked unless include_secrets is true. That is exactly the kind of side effect an agent needs to know before trusting or forwarding the output.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the operation, then the important masking caveat, then actionable examples. No filler; every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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 read-only tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers operation, safety-relevant masking behavior, and filtering guidance. Output format (raw config text) is only implied rather than stated, which is the one small gap.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real value: concrete filter values that map to use cases, and the effect of include_secrets (unmasking secrets) beyond the schema's terse 'Return unmasked secrets'. Only the limit parameter is left entirely to 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?

States a specific verb+resource (read the router's running-config) and a clear scope qualifier (optional regex filter). It does not explicitly name siblings like get_config_state or the specialized getters, but the examples make clear that this is the raw config surface versus the structured per-feature tools.

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 four filter examples ('ip static', 'access-list', 'ip dhcp host', 'ip http proxy') give concrete context for when and how to use the tool for specific data needs. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when-not to use it (e.g., prefer get_port_forwarding over filtering config), so no exclusions.

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