system_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description is not responsible for flagging safety. It usefully enumerates the reported fields, adding value beyond annotations, but it does not communicate behavior like whether the data is a snapshot or how uptime is expressed. This is acceptable given the structured output schema.

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?

A single well-structured sentence enumerates all returned data without filler. It is front-loaded with the identity attribute and reads naturally for an agent parsing the tool quickly.

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 no-parameter, read-only system information tool with an output schema, the description is fully sufficient. An agent knows what information will be returned and can safely invoke it. No additional guidance is necessary.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the description has no parameter documentation burden. The baseline of 4 applies here; there is nothing additional 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 names the specific subject—the device itself—and the concrete data delivered: identity, RouterOS version, model, uptime, CPU, and memory. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that target firewalls, routes, or interfaces.

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 context is clear: use this when you need device-level system identity and resource state, rather than resource-specific lists like interfaces or firewall rules. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the broad system scope is sufficiently self-evident for a zero-parameter tool.

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