list_wireless_security_profiles

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

The description adds important behavioral context beyond annotations by stating that this is a legacy function unsupported in RouterOS v7.x, which is not derivable from the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations. This helps agents avoid calling it on incompatible devices.

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 short sentence that immediately conveys the critical compatibility issue. Every word is purposeful and nothing is redundant.

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 one-parameter tool, the description gives the essential legacy/unsupported warning, but it lacks any explanation of what the tool does (relying on the name) and provides no parameter details. Given the output schema exists, return values are covered, but the description is still thin.

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?

The single 'device' parameter has no schema description and the tool description does not explain its format, allowed values, or whether it is required. With 0% schema coverage, the description provides no compensation.

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 tool name clearly indicates a list operation for wireless security profiles, but the description only states it's a legacy function unsupported in RouterOS v7.x, without explicitly describing the action or differentiating from sibling get_wireless_security_profile.

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 explicitly warns that it is not supported in RouterOS v7.x, providing a clear when-not-to-use condition, though it does not name alternative tools for legacy environments or provide guidance on when it should be used.

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