Get System Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds context about the variety of data sections retrievable (e.g., health, clock) and mentions the routerId parameter. No contradictions.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and scope. No wasted words.

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 2 parameters fully described, no output schema, and annotations confirming safety, the description is adequate. However, it lacks any description of the output format or structure, which would be helpful for an agent to interpret results.

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 both parameters (routerId, sections) having clear descriptions and enums. The description's mention of 'resource usage, identity, license, routerboard details, health sensors, and clock' maps directly to the sections enum, but adds no new meaning beyond the schema.

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 verb 'Retrieve' and resource 'system status' with a specific list of included sections (resource usage, identity, license, routerboard details, health sensors, clock). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_system_clock, which only returns clock info.

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 for retrieving broad system status but does not explicitly provide when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Given many sibling tools that retrieve specific status pieces, it would benefit from stating that this is a comprehensive overview.

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