hotspot_active

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose a meaningful trait: it returns an empty list rather than an error when no hotspot server exists or no one is logged in. It does not cover auth requirements, pagination, or rate limits, but the key error-vs-empty behavior is well communicated.

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 returned fields, then a second paragraph for the error convention. The heavy backtick formatting is slightly noisy, but every sentence earns its place and the size is appropriate for the 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?

For a read-only list tool with an output schema, the definition covers purpose, returned fields, and the empty-vs-error convention that an agent needs. Remaining gaps (auth, pagination) are minor given the output schema and the simple single-parameter surface.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate for the single `device_name` parameter, and it does not mention it at all. The parameter is trivially self-descriptive, so the practical risk is low, but the description adds no semantics 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List clients currently logged into the RouterOS hotspot'), names the exact API path `/ip/hotspot/active`, and enumerates the returned fields (user, address, mac-address, uptime, bytes-in/out). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like ppp_active and ipsec_active_peers, which cover different session types.

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 reference to ppp_active/ipsec_active_peers is about the empty-list convention, not about when to prefer one tool over another, so alternative-selection guidance is only implied. The description conveys usage context (who is on the hotspot right now) but names no exclusions or prerequisites.

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