router_connections

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context by saying the result is a bounded snapshot, which signals a point-in-time view with a size limit. It does not contradict 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and scope. Every word adds meaning, and there is no unnecessary elaboration.

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 simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and strong annotations, the description is nearly sufficient. The main gaps are the lack of explicit return-shape information and no direct comparison to sibling tools, but these are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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?

The description does not explicitly explain the `limit` parameter, but 'bounded' hints at it. The schema fully documents `limit` with default, minimum, and maximum values, so the agent can invoke the tool correctly despite the lack of description-level parameter detail.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('active conntrack entries'), and 'bounded snapshot' further clarifies scope. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like router_routes, router_neighbors, or router_firewall_status.

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 use for viewing current connection-tracking entries, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. There is enough context to infer the general purpose, but no explicit routing guidance.

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