List Routers

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: it discloses the data source (routers.yaml), that no RouterOS API call is made, that no credentials appear in the response, and the key caveat that rosVersion may lag a router upgrade. These are exactly the behavioral facts an agent needs and the annotations cannot express.

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?

Three tight sentences: what it returns, its read-only nature, then the staleness caveat and discovery use case. Front-loaded with the payload fields and free of repetition or filler.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields and clarifying the semantics of the one ambiguous field (rosVersion). Nothing an agent needs to call or interpret this tool is missing.

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 single 'tags' filter is fully documented in the schema. The description reinforces the tags concept in the context of targeting other tools but adds no format or matching semantics (e.g. OR vs AND) beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('List the routers configured in the registry') plus an explicit enumeration of returned fields (id, host, port, TLS, tags, ROS version, default). An agent can distinguish this from list_neighbors or list_interfaces without opening another schema.

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 names its downstream purpose ('discover valid routerId values and tags for targeting other tools, including bulk_read and bulk_execute') and routes the agent elsewhere for a related need ('ask get_system_status for the live version'). Both when-to-use and an alternative are stated.

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