List MikroTik router profiles

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds important behavioral detail: config files are re-read on every call, profiles can be read-only, and secrets are never returned—only environment variable names. This materially changes how an agent should interpret results and is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: scope, freshness, return contents, security behavior, and usage sequence are each covered without repetition. The most actionable instruction is front-loaded at the end but clearly tied to the tool's role.

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 simple read-only list tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent what is returned, what is deliberately hidden, how to search, and how this tool connects to its sibling.

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 input schema already documents the optional query parameter completely with 100% coverage, including case-insensitive substring matching and omission behavior. The description does not add further parameter-level detail, but the schema handles the burden, so the baseline score applies.

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 states a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('configured MikroTik router profiles'), and immediately orients the agent by naming the sibling tool it feeds ('the profile name that mikrotik_exec needs'). This makes it easy to distinguish from mikrotik_exec without inspecting schemas.

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 tells the agent to 'Call this first' and explains the purpose: discover the profile name required by mikrotik_exec. This is clear when-to-use guidance with a named alternative, which is sufficient given the single sibling tool.

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