router_get_led_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It implies a safe read and scopes the return to LED status plus night mode schedule, but it never states that it is non-mutating, what 'force' changes behaviorally, or whether cached vs live state is returned. Return format is covered by the 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?

One front-loaded sentence with no waste, naming both the primary result and the secondary schedule data immediately.

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?

The output schema covers return values and there is no complexity from required params, but the undocumented 'force' flag and absence of any behavioral framing leave a real gap for an agent deciding whether to pass it.

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 'force' has 0% schema description coverage and the description never mentions it, leaving its meaning and effect entirely unexplained. With coverage this low the description should compensate but does not.

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?

States a specific verb (retrieves) and specific resources (physical LED status, night mode schedule), so an agent can distinguish it from router_set_led_night_mode. It does not explicitly name the sibling it complements, but the read framing is unambiguous.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus alternatives such as router_set_led_night_mode or router_get_status. The read intent is implied by 'retrieves' but nothing is stated about context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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