lte_interfaces

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does deliver one high-value, non-obvious trait: a device with no LTE hardware returns an empty list rather than an error. It omits permission/auth requirements, but the empty-result contract is the detail most likely to trip up an agent and it is stated explicitly.

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 sentences, no filler: the capability and its fields come first, with the edge-case behavior second. Every clause earns its place.

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 single-parameter list tool with an output schema already defining the return shape, the description is largely sufficient and even adds field examples beyond the schema's obligation. The only real omission is any hint about what `device_name` should contain.

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% for the single required `device_name` parameter, and the description never mentions it or clarifies its format (hostname, IP, or inventory identifier). The name is self-evident, so this is not disastrous, but the description compensates for none of the coverage gap.

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 LTE/5G modem interfaces"), gives the RouterOS path `/interface/lte`, and enumerates the returned fields. This is genuinely clear, but it never differentiates itself from the close sibling `lte_status`, which an agent could easily confuse for the same capability.

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?

There is no when-to-use statement, no precondition, and no named alternative among siblings (`interfaces`, `list_devices`, `usb_devices`, `lte_status`). The agent is left to infer that this is the right tool for enumerating LTE modems.

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