List Routers

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the data comes from a local YAML file (routers.yaml), no RouterOS API call is made, and no credentials are returned. This provides useful behavioral context beyond the 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?

Two concise sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose and returns, the second adds critical behavioral context. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter, schema and annotations cover safety, and the description adds the source (routers.yaml) and use case discovery for other tools. No output schema but the description lists the fields returned, making it complete for an agent.

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% and the schema provides a clear description for the single optional parameter 'tags'. The description also mentions tags in the purpose but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema. 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 clearly states the tool lists routers from a specific config file (routers.yaml) and enumerates the fields returned (id, host, port, TLS status, tags, ROS version, default). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting it is a read-only reflection of local config, not a RouterOS API call.

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?

Explicitly says to use it to discover valid routerId values and tags for targeting other tools, including bulk_execute. Also clarifies what it does not do (no RouterOS API call, no credentials in response). Provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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