collect_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does contribute the key behavioral facts: it writes files to disk and the operation is read-only against the device. However, it omits permission/auth requirements, how long the collection takes, and whether it overwrites existing snapshots in the timestamped directory.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the action and the destination, with no filler. Slightly terse at the cost of the parameter guidance an agent needs.

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, and the file destination plus 'Read-only' cover the essentials. Still missing is any explanation of the undocumented 'name' parameter and the usage relationship to sibling tools.

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 compensate. It references <site> through the path template but says nothing about the 'name' parameter or its 'router' default, leaving half of the parameter surface unexplained.

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?

Names a concrete verb (save) and enumerates the resource set it captures (full export, hardware/status/Wi-Fi/VPN/firewall info) plus the destination path template. That is more specific than the sibling router_overview, but the description never explicitly contrasts itself with that or run_command, so an agent must infer the difference.

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 says what will be saved but never when to choose this over router_overview or run_command, nor whether it should precede audit_security/validate_network. Usage is only implied by the output path.

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