router_read

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts beyond that: that active scans and actions are filtered out, and that secrets are redacted in the response. What is missing is any statement of the response shape or error behavior for unknown handlers.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and constraints following; no filler. The brevity edges into under-specification given the parameter complexity, but nothing written is wasted.

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?

This is a complex tool: a 50-value enum, a required selector, a nested free-form query map, and no output schema. The description explains neither what a handler is, how query keys map to handler inputs, nor what the returned data looks like, leaving the agent to guess on the most consequential decisions.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden, yet it never mentions handler, page, or query. The nested `query` object (arbitrary string-to-string map, 4096-char values) and `page` (pagination? HTML page? handler page?) are completely opaque from both schema and description.

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?

"Read a documented passive handler" names a verb and resource, but "handler" is unexplained jargon that only makes sense after inspecting the 50-value enum. It distinguishes itself from the action tools ("all actions are excluded") but gives no basis for choosing it over the sibling router_soap_read or router_list_endpoints.

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 exclusion clause ("Active Wi-Fi scans and all actions are excluded") provides useful negative routing away from router_execute_action and scan paths. However, there is no positive guidance on when this is the right read tool versus router_soap_read, router_get_wifi, or router_get_dhcp, and no mention of where the "documented" handler names come from.

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