router_status

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no behavioral context such as authentication needs, rate limits, or pagination; it only lists return fields that the output schema already covers.

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 noun phrase listing fields, with no wasted words. However, it is a fragment rather than a front-loaded purpose statement, and the list format is less helpful than a sentence explaining what the tool does.

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?

Because an output schema exists, the description need not enumerate return values, yet it does so instead of adding purpose or usage context. It is minimally adequate for a simple read-only tool whose annotations cover safety, but it lacks guidance for selecting among many sibling tools.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the scoring rules. The description has no parameter information to add, and none is needed.

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 enumerates data points such as 'Router model, firmware, uptime, CPU and memory' but never states a verb or purpose sentence like 'retrieve router status.' It implicitly distinguishes some data from siblings through the field list, but provides no explicit sibling differentiation.

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 indication is given for when to use router_status instead of siblings like wifi_info, traffic_stats, or check_firmware. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative conditions mentioned.

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