mikrotik_system_resources

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly lists the data returned (CPU, memory, uptime, version) and the verb 'Get' indicates a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose potential error behaviors, authentication requirements, or response format, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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 zero redundancy. It immediately states the action, resource, and the specific data components, making it highly efficient and scannable.

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 read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the tool retrieves. It lacks explicit mention of return format or error conditions, but the simplicity of the tool means the description is reasonably complete.

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 only one parameter (device_id) with 100% coverage, meaning the schema already adequately describes the parameter. The tool description adds no further detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and clearly defines the resource as 'system resource usage' from Mikrotik, enumerating CPU, memory, uptime, and version. This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like mikrotik_get_interfaces or mikrotik_get_routes.

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 implies a clear use case for retrieving system-level resource information, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or which sibling tools to use instead. Since the purpose is unambiguous and there are no obvious overlapping tools for system resources, the context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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