Router system information

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering the safety profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful context about what data is revealed (the data enumeration), but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond that. 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?

Two sentences with zero waste: the first front-loads the data content, the second delivers the usage rationale. Every phrase earns its place, including the justification for why the component list matters.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what data is returned and when to call it. It does not specify response structure or unit formats, but for a simple info tool this is sufficient and discoverable from the actual response.

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, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. There is nothing for the description to document regarding parameters, and it correctly implies a no-input call.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('get system info') and enumerates the exact data returned: model, firmware version, uptime, CPU/memory load, and KeeneticOS component list. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like get_connection_status and get_internet_status by identifying its own scope.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this first when you need to know what the router supports.' It gives clear context for when the tool is appropriate, though it does not name specific sibling alternatives or exclusion conditions, leaving the comparison to other status tools implicit.

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