Check Router Health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context: 'never throws' and the unreachable-device handling (reported as healthy=false), plus the distinction between RouterOS and SwOS. This goes beyond annotations without contradiction, though it doesn't cover auth or rate limits.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action, and every clause adds value (device types, return fields, and the non-throwing behavior). No redundancy or fluff; it is efficiently structured.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does, what it returns, and its failure mode. It also clarifies platform-specific differences in returned data, making it complete for the given complexity.

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% since the only parameter, routerId, has a clear description ('Router ID; omit to use the default router'). The description does not add any additional semantics beyond the schema, matching the baseline for high coverage.

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 action: 'Probe a device' with specific protocols (system/resource, sys.b) and explicitly lists the returned fields (health status, firmware version, uptime, CPU load, memory info). It distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning 'Unlike other tools, this never throws,' making its unique behavior clear.

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 implies usage via 'Probe a device' and its focus on health, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it name specific sibling tools. The 'Unlike other tools' hint suggests robustness as a differentiator, but exclusions or alternative recommendations are absent.

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