router_realtime_stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds minor context by framing the data as 'samples' from LuCI, but it does not disclose output format, device behavior, or any other behavioral traits beyond 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 concise sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and lists all major modes. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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?

Given the low schema coverage, no output schema, and the large set of sibling tools, the description leaves important gaps: it does not explain the 'device' parameter, describe return values, or clarify how this relates to similar status/detail tools. An agent could call it correctly for 'mode' but is left guessing about the optional parameter and expected result.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It partially covers the 'mode' parameter by listing the four sample categories, though it uses 'bandwidth' where the schema says 'interface'. It says nothing about the optional 'device' parameter, so a non-trivial part of the invocation is left unexplained.

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 clear verb ('Get') and specific resource ('LuCI bandwidth, wireless, conntrack, or load samples'), and enumerates the main modes. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like router_wifi_overview or router_interface_details, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools that also report router status, interface details, or wireless information. The description merely states what it returns, not why an agent should choose it over alternatives.

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