router_get_upnp

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden; it does usefully disclose that a 'Network Guard safety check' exists and can be bypassed with force. However it does not say what Network Guard protects, whether bypassing it is risky, or whether the call is read-only and side-effect free, leaving the risk profile underspecified.

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 states the purpose, followed by a compact args block. No filler, though the raw docstring 'Args:' formatting is slightly less scannable than prose.

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 need not be described. For a one-parameter read tool the coverage is near adequate, but with zero annotations the description leaves the safety-guard concept and the consequences of forcing unexplained, which is the one thing an agent could get wrong here.

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 coverage is 0% (the schema only says 'boolean, Force, default false'), and the description supplies the missing semantics: force bypasses the Network Guard safety check. That is real meaning beyond the structured field. It stops short of explaining what happens when the check is bypassed or when force is needed.

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 (UPnP status and active dynamic port mappings), which clearly separates it from the mutating sibling router_set_upnp. It never names the sibling explicitly, so the get/set disambiguation rests on the tool name rather than the text.

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 router_get_port_forwarding or router_set_upnp, and no prerequisites. The only usage-adjacent hint is the 'force' arg note implying Network Guard may block the call, which is a condition but not guidance on alternatives.

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