Call the router API directly

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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description describes POST operations that 'sends a command object mirroring the CLI tree', and the schema includes dry_run and confirm parameters, indicating mutation is possible. This is a direct contradiction. The description also fails to disclose potential destructive behavior or authentication needs, relying on annotations that are contradicted.

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?

Three sentences with no fluff. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by GET/POST specifics and a practical response-cap warning. Every sentence earns its place and the structure is clear.

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 complex (6 parameters, no output schema) and the description omits critical behavioral context, notably the read/write contradiction. It does not explain what happens on POST, whether changes are reversible, or any error behavior. The annotation contradiction makes it incomplete for safe 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented. The description adds context beyond the schema: it explains the path format for GET, that body must be JSON, and the rationale for max_bytes. This enriches parameter understanding without repeating schema text, justifying a score above the baseline of 3.

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 sends a raw request to the router RCI interface and positions it as a fallback for anything other tools do not cover. It distinguishes itself from the specific sibling get_/list_ tools by scope and gives concrete examples (show/version, interface/Bridge0). The purpose is unmistakable.

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 explicitly says this tool is for anything the other tools do not cover, which is a clear when-to-use guideline. It also advises asking for a narrow path due to response caps, offering practical usage guidance. It does not enumerate specific sibling tools to avoid, but the fallback positioning is strong enough.

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