ipsec_active_peers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers a genuinely useful behavioral trait: it returns an empty list rather than an error for non-IPsec devices, which prevents an agent from misreading a normal state as a failure. It still omits any mention of permissions or result-size/count behavior, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Two tight sentences, purpose front-loaded with the path, and the caveat immediately after. The awkward line wrapping and the field enumeration could be trimmed slightly, but nothing is wasted.

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 values do not strictly need spelling out, yet the description usefully summarizes them and adds the empty-list semantics. The only real gap is the undocumented device_name input.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description never mentions the sole parameter (device_name) or what value it expects (device name vs. address vs. identifier). With low coverage the description should compensate, and it does not.

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?

Specific verb ('List') plus exact resource ('active IPsec peers') and the RouterOS path (/ip/ipsec/active-peers), with the returned fields enumerated. An agent can distinguish this from wireguard_peers, ppp_active, and bgp_sessions without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the monitoring/listing nature of the tool and the note that an empty result is normal, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no routing toward the sibling tools that cover other tunnel types (wireguard_peers, ppp_active).

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