mikrotik_get_wireless

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the operation and resource, omitting details such as return format, pagination, error handling, or authentication requirements. For an unannotated tool, this is a significant gap.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy or filler. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose without waste, making it appropriately concise for a simple getter operation.

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?

The tool is simple with one fully documented parameter, but it lacks an output schema or annotations. The description does not explain the structure of the returned 'registration table' or any edge cases, making it minimally complete but not rich enough for complex decision-making.

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 schema fully documents the single parameter 'device_id' with the description 'Mikrotik device ID', achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no further parameter meaning, but the high schema coverage means the baseline score 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 'Get wireless client registration table from Mikrotik' uses a specific verb (Get) and a clear resource (wireless client registration table). This distinctly differentiates it from sibling tools like mikrotik_get_interfaces or mikrotik_get_routes, which target other resource types.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention intended use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. The only context is the tool name and sibling list, which implies but does not explicitly state usage scenarios.

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