router_get_reboot_schedule

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It does add useful information by saying force bypasses the 'Network Guard safety check,' which the schema alone doesn't convey. However, it doesn't explain what the bypass means for a read operation, or what permissions are needed, so the disclosure is partial.

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?

It is two sentences with no filler, and the purpose is stated first. The Args block cleanly documents the single parameter.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values don't need explaining. The one parameter is documented, and the tool's scope is clear. It could say more about why a read operation would need a safety bypass, but it is otherwise sufficient.

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 must explain the only parameter, and it does: force is used to bypass the Network Guard safety check. It gives the parameter's meaning and effect, though not the default value.

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?

It states a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieves the automated periodic reboot schedule settings.' That clearly distinguishes it from router_set_reboot_schedule and router_reboot. However, the description doesn't explicitly contrast those siblings, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

It gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and it doesn't mention the nearby alternatives router_set_reboot_schedule or router_reboot. The only usage hint is indirect: 'Retrieves' implies a read operation.

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