router_luci_pages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety expectations. The description adds useful context beyond those annotations by indicating the result will include not just pages but also their implementation status, which helps the agent understand what the tool returns. There is no contradiction, and the behavior of a read-only list operation is simple enough that no further disclosure is required.

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 one concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then adds the relevant detail about implementation status. There is no redundant wording 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?

For a parameterless, read-only listing tool, the description is fully complete: it states what is listed and what information is provided. The empty schema and strong annotations handle the remaining calling context, and no output schema is needed for an agent to know what to expect from this tool.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema confirms this with empty properties. Per the calibration baseline for tools with no parameters, the description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and it does not attempt to.

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 ('List') and identifies a clear resource (standard LuCI pages represented by this MCP server) plus what is reported about them (implementation status). It is easily distinguished from the sibling tools, which cover network statuses, diagnostics, and system information rather than a server page inventory.

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 clearly establishes that this tool is for discovering which standard LuCI pages the server exposes and their implementation status. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but no sibling tool appears to overlap with this purpose, so the usage context is clear enough without needing to rule out alternatives.

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