router_known_hosts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the LuCI host-hints source and the nature of the data, but does not disclose potential staleness, cache behavior, or whether it reflects live network state. No contradiction with 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It names the verb, resource, and data content compactly, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool this is workable, but there is no output schema and the description does not state the return shape (e.g., list of objects with hostname/ip/mac fields). It also omits caveats about data freshness or the distinction between host hints and active DHCP leases, which would matter for correct selection and interpretation.

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 input schema has no parameters, so the description carries no parameter burden. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description adds useful meaning about what the returned data represents, which is more than the empty schema provides.

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 states a clear action ('Get') and resource ('LuCI host hints') and specifies the data dimensions (hostnames, IP addresses, MAC addresses). It is not a tautology and gives a concrete idea of what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like router_dhcp_leases.

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?

Usage context is implied: an agent can infer this tool is appropriate when it needs LuCI's host hint correlations. However, the description provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or mention of alternatives such as router_neighbors or router_dhcp_leases.

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