router_get_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the safety profile alone. It usefully discloses that force bypasses Network Guard SSID/Gateway validation, which is meaningful behavioral context, but it does not state permissions, side effects, or whether this read operation can be disruptive.

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 short and front-loaded: the purpose appears in the first sentence and the single parameter is explained immediately after. No sentence 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?

Because an output schema exists, return fields need not be explained. The description covers the read nature and the force bypass, though it could be more complete by clarifying its relationship to router_get_rf_signal and when Network Guard validation matters.

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 single parameter. It does so clearly: force bypasses Network Guard SSID/Gateway validation, which adds real meaning beyond the bare boolean 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?

States a clear verb and resource (retrieves device, cellular LTE, RF signal, and WAN status) and scopes it as a broad status snapshot. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling router_get_rf_signal, which overlaps on RF metrics, so it falls 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?

Usage is implied by the broad 'full status' framing, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over router_get_rf_signal or other status-related getters. It also does not say when the force bypass should or should not be used.

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