mikrotik_get_dhcp_leases

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. 'Get' implies read-only, but the description does not explicitly state that this operation is safe/non-mutating, nor does it mention authentication needs, rate limits, or output structure. This is a minimal disclosure.

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 one focused sentence, front-loaded with the action, and contains no unnecessary words. It is efficient and appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description names the purpose adequately. However, it does not describe the return format, any limitations, or typical use cases. It is minimal but sufficient for a basic get operation.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter (device_id described as 'Mikrotik device ID'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so it correctly relies on the schema. The baseline of 3 applies.

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 identifies the action (Get) and the resource (DHCP server leases from Mikrotik), distinguishing it from other Mikrotik tools like mikrotik_get_interfaces or mikrotik_get_routes. However, it lacks explicit scope details (e.g., all leases vs. specific interface), so it's clear but not maximally informative.

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, any prerequisites (e.g., device availability, API permissions), or alternatives. The name makes the purpose obvious, but an agent gets no decision-making context beyond that.

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