fetch_data

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by enumerating available getters and stating the return format ('Structured data per host mapping hostname -> result'). It does not disclose caveats like credential requirements or performance implications, but given the annotations, this is sufficient.

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 efficiently structured: a one-sentence purpose, a bulleted list of common getters, a labeled Args section, and a Returns section. Everything earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded. It is detailed yet not verbose.

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 complexity (6 parameters, output schema present, read-only annotations), the description is largely complete: it explains what the getters return, lists parameters, and describes the output mapping. The only gap is the lack of detail on getters_options, but the presence of an output schema and annotations reduces the burden.

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?

With schema description coverage at 83%, the baseline is 3. The description enhances parameter understanding by giving concrete examples of valid getter names (e.g., 'facts', 'interfaces') and noting that getters_options is optional, although it remains vague about its structure. This adds value beyond the schema's generic parameter names.

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 opens with a clear verb-resource pair: 'Execute one or more NAPALM getters to retrieve structured data from network devices.' This strongly distinguishes it from siblings like apply_config (write) and list_devices (inventory listing). The list of common getters further clarifies its purpose.

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 clearly states the tool's function and provides a list of common getters, which implies when to use it (e.g., when you need facts, interfaces, BGP state). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use show_commands for raw CLI output'), so it falls short of a 5.

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