radius

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 so thoroughly: it discloses that the plaintext RADIUS shared secret is always stripped via `formatting.strip_sensitive_fields`, never leaves the process, and is handled like `ppp_secrets` and `wireguard_interfaces`. It also states that an empty list, not an error, is returned when no RADIUS servers are configured.

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 definition front-loads the listing purpose, then a clearly labeled SECURITY block, then edge-case return behavior. The security detail and test reference make it longer than a bare list description, but the structure is purposeful and not padded.

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-value details are largely covered elsewhere, and the description adds important security and empty-list behavior. The main gap is the undocumented `device_name` parameter, which is minor for a single required field but still left entirely to the schema.

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 explains what `device_name` means or how to supply it. The parameter name is fairly self-evident, but the description adds no semantic detail beyond the bare schema field.

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?

Starts with a specific verb, 'List', and a specific resource, 'RADIUS server configuration', and names the RouterOS endpoint `/radius`. No sibling tool exposes RADIUS configuration, so the resource itself distinguishes it from the surrounding list tools.

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 implies this is the tool for inspecting RADIUS server configuration and notes empty-list behavior for devices with no RADIUS servers. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over alternatives or any prerequisite beyond the required device. There is no sibling RADIUS-list tool, so alternative guidance is less critical, but explicit usage context is still absent.

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