get_routers_configs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the response is paginated (page size 100) and requires a specific permission, providing behavioral context beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose other traits like rate limits or data freshness.

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 highly concise: two short sentences plus the required permission and endpoint. Every sentence adds value, with the key action and constraints front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers purpose, permission, pagination, and the endpoint. It lacks details about the return format or field structure, but the naming and sibling tools provide sufficient context.

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 single parameter 'page' is fully described in the input schema (type, default, description), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter beyond mentioning pagination, which is already in the schema.

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 explicitly states 'Get all router configs' and returns them in paginated form, clearly indicating the tool's purpose. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_routers_configs_by_config_id and get_routers_configs_default by focusing on 'all' configs.

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 mentions the required permission ('Device command and configuration, View') which guides authorization context. It implicitly distinguishes from other get_* config tools by specifying 'all' and 'paginated', but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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