list_wireless_interfaces

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe, non-mutating operation. The description adds only the 'on the MikroTik device' scoping, which is trivial and already implied by the tool name. It does not disclose filtering behavior, return formats, or empty-list semantics, but the existing annotations cover the most critical safety aspects.

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 wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation. However, it is so brief that it borderlines on under-specification, though it does not contain irrelevant fluff.

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 read-only annotations, the tool has four optional parameters and numerous sibling tools. The description does not explain the filtering capabilities, when to use it over 'list_interfaces', or any edge cases. The single-sentence description is insufficient for a tool with this complexity and context.

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 mention any of the four parameters (device, name_filter, running_only, disabled_only). The parameter names and defaults are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description provides no additional meaning, leaving the agent without guidance on how to use these filters effectively.

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 provides a clear verb ('Lists') and resource ('wireless interfaces') with a scope ('on the MikroTik device'). It is specific enough to understand the tool's basic function, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'list_interfaces' tool, which could also list wireless interfaces as part of all interfaces.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'list_interfaces' or 'get_wireless_interface'. It does not mention any exclusions or prerequisites. Given the large number of sibling tools, this absence of usage context is a significant gap.

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