get_wireless_registration_table

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond naming the resource; it does not mention any behavior such as filtering, error conditions, or effects of the optional parameters. Since annotations cover the main safety aspects, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a single, concise sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and the parenthetical clarification adds value without bloat.

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?

For a simple read-only getter with an output schema present, the description is mostly sufficient. However, it does not mention the role of the parameters or any usage nuances, which is a minor gap. Given the simplicity and the existence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete but could benefit from a note about the optional interface filter.

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%, and the description does not explain the parameters (device and interface) at all. The parameter names are self-explanatory to some extent, but the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving the agent without guidance on how to use these optional parameters.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Gets the wireless registration table (connected clients) from the MikroTik device.' It uses a specific verb ('gets') and a specific resource (wireless registration table), and the parenthetical 'connected clients' clarifies the data returned. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_wireless_security_profile or scan_wireless_networks.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. While the phrase 'connected clients' implies a use case, there is no explicit context about when to choose this tool over other wireless-related getters or scans, which is a clear gap.

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