router_overview

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It only lists the dashboard contents and says nothing about read-only safety, authentication requirements, or return behavior. The implied read-only nature of a 'dashboard' is weak and not explicit.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool, though the extreme terseness borders on under-specification.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should do more to explain the return shape or usage context. It lists included metrics but does not say how they are presented or when this aggregate view is preferable to the individual sibling tools, leaving the agent with incomplete 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline score of 4 applies. The description adds no parameter information because there are no parameters to describe.

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 names the resource ('dashboard') and enumerates the metrics it covers (firmware, CPU, memory, WAN, device count), giving a clear picture of what the tool returns. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like get_firmware or get_ipv4_status, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many specific getter siblings. It does not mention that this is a high-level overview suitable for initial inspection before drilling into individual endpoints, leaving usage entirely implicit.

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