router_system_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint true, idempotentHint true, and destructiveHint false. The description adds value by enumerating the exact categories of information returned (board, firmware, kernel, etc.), which goes beyond the annotations and gives the agent a precise expectation of the response content. No contradictions 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?

The description is a single sentence with no redundancy. The verb and resource are front-loaded, and the enumerated fields are carefully chosen to be both comprehensive and compact. Every word contributes to the agent's understanding.

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 read-only system info tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully specifies what the agent will get. It lists all relevant information categories (board, firmware, kernel, load, memory, uptime, LuCI version), which is sufficient for an agent to decide to call it and interpret the result. Nothing essential is missing.

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 takes zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. Per the rubric, a 0-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4. The description's list of fields further clarifies what the agent will receive, so no additional parameter explanation is required.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'system info' with a specific enumeration of fields: board, firmware, kernel, load, memory, uptime, and LuCI version. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like router_realtime_stats or router_routes, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 29 sibling tools, an agent cannot know whether to pick this over more specific ones (e.g., router_realtime_stats for real-time data, router_storage for disk usage). No exclusions or conditions are mentioned.

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