Ris Collectors

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It transparently states that this is a listing operation and explains collector characteristics like multihop peers and full-feed peer counts, which helps the agent interpret results. It does not cover pagination or data freshness, but those are minor for a list endpoint.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the bullet list is structured and scannable. The use-case bullets are genuinely useful rather than filler, though the description is slightly long for a simple list tool.

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 description covers purpose, usage context, and selection guidance, while the output schema covers return values and the input schema covers parameter defaults. The only minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly state that calling with no arguments returns all collectors, but the schema's optional parameters already imply this.

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 already documents both parameters (region, active_only) at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds regional domain knowledge that indirectly relates to the region parameter, but it does not explicitly explain the filter semantics or default behavior beyond what the schema already provides.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List RIPE RIS route collectors with location, peer counts, and status.' This clearly identifies what the tool does and differentiates it from sibling lookup/validation tools like bgp_route_lookup or mrt_search.

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 gives explicit context for when to use it ('Use this to understand where BGP data is collected from') and adds practical regional use cases such as 'Need Asian perspective? Use RRC06 (Tokyo)'. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the usage context is clear.

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