router_run_diagnostic

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds useful behavioral context with 'fixed, non-configuring', clarifying that the command does not modify router state and is not interactive or configurable. 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, tight sentence that front-loads the action and the key qualifiers ('fixed', 'non-configuring'). Every word earns its place; there is no filler or repetition of the tool name.

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?

The tool is simple and annotations cover safety, but the description omits parameter details and return behavior. For a diagnostic command runner, an agent would benefit from knowing that 'target' is an address or hostname and whether output is raw command output. The description is minimally viable but has gaps.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate by explaining the parameters. It names operation values Ping, Traceroute, and DNS, which maps to the 'operation' enum, but it says nothing about 'target' or 'family'. An agent would still be left guessing what target format is expected or how family is used.

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 ('Run') and a clear resource: the fixed, non-configuring Ping, Traceroute, or DNS command used by the LuCI diagnostics page. It conveys what the tool does and hints at its scope, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from the sibling 'router_network_diagnostics'.

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 gives clear context that this tool executes the same diagnostic commands as the LuCI diagnostics page, which implies when an agent would use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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