router_info

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description reinforces this by using the read-only verb '查询' and disclosing the return structure, which adds context about the sort of diagnostic data provided. It does not go deeper into operational behavior beyond what annotations already state, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 efficient: one line states the purpose, then a compact return structure is provided. The return structure is helpful and well organized, though the scattered fields inside the 'data' object could be slightly more compact. Overall every sentence 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?

The description adequately covers what an agent needs to know to call this parameterless, read-only diagnostic tool. It explains the key data sections and the availability of an output schema means result documentation is already present. It could mention how this information supports other actions, but that is not essential for correct invocation.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add. Baseline for 0 params is 4; the description simply confirms no inputs are needed.

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 tool queries SSH connection health, detected init system, device system, and effective security policy. It uses a specific verb (查询/'query') with a concrete resource (router information), which is distinct from the sibling service_* and run_shell tools.

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 explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only lists what it returns; it doesn't say that it is diagnostic, that it should be used before service operations, or when another tool would be a better choice. Usage must be inferred.

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