bridge_ports

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and delivers real behavioral detail: it discloses that only `disabled` is coerced to `bool | None` while `edge`/`learn` are left as raw RouterOS enums, naming the coercion helper. It omits auth/rate-limit context, but for a read-only list tool that gap is minor.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and routing guidance, and each sentence carries information. It is slightly over-detailed in naming the internal `formatting.coerce_ros_bool` helper and the raw `/interface/bridge/port` path, which cost a little space without adding agent-facing value.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is not required, and the description still adds field-level normalization semantics plus clear sibling routing. The only real gap is that the required `device_name` argument is left entirely to the schema's type declaration.

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 single parameter `device_name` has 0% schema description coverage and the description never explains it, so it does not compensate for the gap. The description instead spends its words on return-field semantics, which belong to the payload rather than the argument.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('List bridge port membership') and names the exact RouterOS path it maps to. It also implicitly separates itself from bridge_hosts and bridge_vlans by stating what those tools do not cover.

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?

Explicitly says to use this together with `bridge_vlans` to determine which physical port a VLAN applies to, and states the negative case: `bridge_hosts` only shows the MAC table, not port/VLAN configuration. Both the alternative and the exclusion condition are named.

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