List Bridge Ports

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds useful context by naming the entry fields returned (interface membership, PVID, STP role/status) and noting filtering/pagination support, though it does not discuss auth or pagination behavior in depth.

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?

Two tightly written sentences: the core purpose and returned fields come first, followed by filtering/pagination capabilities. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 full schema documentation, safe read-only annotations, and no output schema, the description supplies enough context to call the tool correctly, including what entries contain and that filtering/pagination exist. Minor omissions like default router behavior are already covered by the schema.

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%, so every parameter is already documented in the input schema. The description only generically mentions filtering by bridge/interface and pagination, adding no syntax or format meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb (List), resource (bridge port entries), platform (MikroTik router), and even enumerates the returned fields. It clearly distinguishes this read-only listing from sibling tools like manage_bridge_port and list_bridges.

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 when to use it by stating it lists bridge port entries and supports filtering by bridge/interface, but it never explicitly contrasts usage with siblings such as manage_bridge_port, list_bridges, or list_interfaces. This is adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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