get_sdwan_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that config_id is required and where to get it, but doesn't disclose what the response contains (even though an output schema exists), whether the configuration is returned in a specific format, or any error behavior. For a read operation, it doesn't mention that it's non-mutating or idempotent. Given no annotations at all, this is a notable gap.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second gives the essential parameter guidance. Every word earns its place, and the critical 'REQUIRED' flag is front-loaded.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does and where to get the ID. With no annotations, a bit more behavioral detail (e.g., that it's read-only, what the response looks like) would help, but the output schema likely compensates. The simplicity of the tool means this is fairly complete, but not fully.

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 schema only provides the parameter name (config_id) and type (string). The description compensates by marking it REQUIRED and telling the agent exactly how to obtain it (from list_sdwan_configs' id field). This adds real semantic value beyond the schema. However, it doesn't describe the format of config_id or any constraints, so not a 5.

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's purpose: 'Get a single SD-WAN configuration by ID.' It names the specific verb (Get), resource (SD-WAN configuration), and identifier (ID). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_sdwan_configs or get_sdwan_config_status in the description, but the verb+resource+ID structure makes the purpose clear enough. It could have mentioned the distinction from get_sdwan_config_status, so not a 5.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use this tool: when you have a config_id obtained from list_sdwan_configs. It states the precondition clearly ('Obtain it from list_sdwan_configs') and implies you should use this tool after listing. However, it doesn't explicitly say when not to use it or mention alternatives like get_sdwan_config_status, so it's clear context but no exclusions.

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