send_config

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that commands are executed sequentially: '自动逐条执行' (automatically executes one by one) and '按顺序执行' (executed in order), and notes the system-view prerequisite. However, it does not mention error handling behavior, whether execution stops on failure, or any side effects beyond configuration changes, which are gaps given the absence of annotations.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a prerequisite and useful example commands. It is reasonably concise, though the example list is somewhat long. Each part serves a purpose: examples clarify command format and context. No unnecessary fluff.

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) and no output schema or annotations, the description provides the essential usage context: batch execution, order, and prerequisite. However, it omits important operational details such as whether an active connection is required and what happens when a command fails. Since annotations and output schema are absent, the description should have covered these to be fully complete.

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% with a clear description for the 'commands' parameter (list of commands, one per line). The tool description adds value beyond the schema by providing example commands, clarifying the order of execution, and emphasizing the need for system-view context. This enriches the understanding of what valid input looks like.

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 function: '批量发送配置命令给交换机' (batch send configuration commands to switch), with '自动逐条执行' (automatically executes one by one). It also emphasizes '适合批量配置场景' (suitable for batch configuration scenarios), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like send_command that target single commands.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: '适合批量配置场景' (suitable for batch configuration scenarios). It also specifies a prerequisite: '使用前请确保已进入 system-view（系统视图）' (before use, ensure you have entered system-view). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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