get_router_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it reads from config.ini, requires no device connection, and returns section names. No side effects are mentioned, which is appropriate for a read operation.

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 concise: a one-line summary followed by a clear Args section. Every sentence adds value. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and then details parameters.

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 has 2 parameters (none required), no annotations, and an output schema (implied but not shown), the description covers the input semantics well and explains the return value. The sibling tools are diverse, but this simple listing tool is fully described.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It provides a detailed explanation of the tags parameter, including the logical combination (AND within group, OR across groups). The config_path parameter is briefly explained. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 states it lists routers from config.ini, optionally filtered by tags, and that it returns hostnames for use with other tools. It explicitly says 'No device connection required', distinguishing it from sibling tools that involve device connections.

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 explains that the hostnames can be used with other tools, implying a workflow. It also notes no device connection needed, suggesting it's safe and fast. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools, such as for initial discovery before running commands on devices.

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