Router status

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

Description adds context beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint) by specifying the exact attributes returned. No contradictory or missing behavioral traits.

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?

Single sentence, clear and to the point. Could be more structured (e.g., bullet points) but efficient for the content.

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 no-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what is returned. Could add real-time vs cached detail, but sufficient given sibling context.

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?

No parameters to document, so baseline is 4. Description doesn't need to add parameter meaning since schema coverage is 100% (no params).

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?

Description clearly states the action ('Get router identity and health') and lists specific fields (model, firmware, hostname, uptime, load average, memory). Distinguishes from sibling tools like list_devices (device list) and wan_info (WAN status) by focusing on the router itself.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The purpose implies it's for general router status, but no exclusion or when-not-to-use is provided.

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