monitor_router_statistics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It clearly states a read operation ('Get'), indicating non-destructive behavior. However, it does not disclose additional behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, or output format details beyond what is implied.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the main action and resource. It contains no extraneous words and is highly efficient.

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 has one optional parameter and an output schema (not shown). The description covers the core purpose and scope, listing the protocols. It is reasonably complete for a simple read tool, though it could mention that it returns adjacency/neighbor information (implied by parentheses).

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 coverage is 100% with one parameter (vdom) already well-described in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the verb 'Get' with a specific resource 'routing protocol statistics' and lists the protocols BGP, OSPF, RIP. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like monitor_router_ipv4 (IPv4 routes), monitor_router_lookup (route lookup), and router_bgp_get (configuration retrieval).

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 usage for retrieving routing protocol statistics but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives like router_bgp_get or monitor_router_ipv4. No when-not or prerequisite guidance is given, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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