router_network_device

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 clear. The description adds that the tool returns status and counters for one device, slightly expanding the contract, but it does not mention counter semantics (e.g., cumulative, per-boot), error behavior for unknown device names, or whether status includes link state.

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 conveys the operation, scope, and examples without wasted words. Everything in the description earns its place.

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 fully documented parameter and safety annotations, the description is nearly complete. The only notable omission is a more concrete statement of what 'status and counters' includes, but an agent can correctly invoke this tool based on the provided text.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already explains the name parameter with the same examples (eth0, br-lan). The tool description repeats these examples but adds no semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 resource ('status and counters for one network device'), with concrete examples (eth0, br-lan). It distinguishes this from list-style siblings by emphasizing 'one,' but it does not explicitly differentiate from similarly scoped tools like router_interface_details.

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?

No guidance is given about when to choose this over siblings, such as router_interfaces for a list, router_realtime_stats for live metrics, or router_interface_details for fuller interface details. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative routing statements.

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