get_wireless_security_profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds context about the tool being legacy and unsupported in v7.x, which is useful for setting expectations about compatibility. It does not describe other behaviors like return values or errors, but with annotations present, this is acceptable.

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 very short, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It lacks essential information about the tool's purpose and parameters, so it does not effectively earn its place. Proper conciseness should convey key facts in few words; here it omits the core function.

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?

Despite having an output schema and annotations, the description is extremely incomplete. It does not even state that the tool gets a wireless security profile, leaving the agent without a clear understanding of what the tool does or when to use it. The legacy note is the only contextual detail, which is insufficient for selection and invocation.

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%, and the description does not mention the 'name' or 'device' parameters at all. The agent cannot determine what values to pass for these parameters from the description, making it impossible to invoke the tool correctly without external knowledge.

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 fails to state that this tool retrieves a wireless security profile. It only provides a caveat that it is legacy and unsupported in RouterOS v7.x, which obscures the function's true purpose. The name gives some clue, but the description does not reinforce or clarify it.

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 an exclusion by stating the tool is not supported in RouterOS v7.x, implying it should not be used on that version. However, it gives no guidance on when to use the tool or what alternative to use instead, so usage guidance is minimal.

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