ros_list

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

The description restates the read-only and idempotent behavior already declared by the annotations, but adds little new behavioral context beyond that. The 'escape hatch' framing is useful positioning, though not a behavioral disclosure, and there is no contradiction with the 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 concise sentences front-load the core purpose and safety constraint. Every sentence earns its place; the escape-hatch guidance is included without unnecessary repetition.

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?

With one well-documented parameter, an output schema present, and read-only/idempotent hints in annotations, the description provides enough context for correct invocation. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, and its safety profile.

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 schema already fully documents the 'path' parameter with a clear description and examples at 100% coverage. The description adds no new parameter-level detail, but given the baseline for high schema coverage is 3, this is adequate.

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 ('Read'/'lists items') and a clear resource ('any RouterOS configuration path'). It also positions itself as the generic escape hatch for paths without a dedicated tool, which helps distinguish it from the many sibling 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?

The description explicitly states when to use this tool: for anything without a dedicated tool. It also draws a clear boundary by stating it is read-only and cannot modify the device, so the agent knows not to select it for configuration changes.

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