get_config

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description reinforces this with '[READ-ONLY]' and 'Does not modify anything' without contradicting the annotations. It adds genuine behavioral context beyond the annotations: the candidate-buffer vs committed-config distinction and the dirtyId="2" admin="admin" attribute heuristics for spotting uncommitted state.

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 three sentences and front-loaded with the [READ-ONLY] marker and core action. The dirtyId/admin parenthetical is the longest part but earns its place as an actionable verification hint. Slightly dense, but nothing is wasted.

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 output schema, the description relies on the schema's param docs (format metadata_only) and its own usage hints to convey behavior. It covers the primary use cases (verifying staged candidate changes and reading committed config) and the safety profile. Minor gaps remain around error behavior for nonexistent paths and response size/pagination, but for a simple read tool these are not critical.

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 100%, placing the baseline at 3. All five parameters (xpath, format, firewall, metadata_only, redact_secrets) are already well documented in the schema with examples and enums. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail beyond the behavioral hints, which is acceptable given the schema's completeness.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Reads configuration XML at a specific XPath location from the firewall/Panorama candidate buffer.' This clearly distinguishes it from write operations like set_config/delete_config and from sibling read tools like get_config_logs and get_routing_table, which target different data. The scope ('candidate buffer' vs committed config) is explicit.

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 concrete use context: 'Use this to verify staged candidate changes... or to read committed config.' It also implies an exclusion with 'Does not modify anything.' However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when-not-to-use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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