wireless_registrations

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose non-obvious traits: dual-path lookup order, silent fallback, and empty-list-instead-of-error semantics for wired-only or missing-package devices. It omits auth/permission requirements and pagination or volume characteristics, which keeps it from 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?

Front-loaded with the core action and output fields, then the fallback/edge-case rationale. The parenthetical field list and the sibling pointer both earn their place; the multi-line layout is slightly more verbose than needed but 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 shape needn't be described, and the description still notes the rows are raw RouterOS fields. Combined with the fallback and empty-list semantics, an agent has enough to call this correctly; only parameter naming guidance is missing.

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 parameter, and the description only indirectly implies that 'the device' is identified by device_name. It adds no format or naming guidance, so the lone parameter remains under-specified.

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+resource ('List wireless clients currently associated to the device') plus the returned column set (mac, signal, interface, uptime). It also explicitly names the sibling it is not — get_wireless_link_quality — so an agent can distinguish raw vs. normalized registration data without opening either 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?

It explains the generation-dependent resolution (ROS7 wifi first, ROS6 wireless fallback) and states the expected no-radio case, and it routes clearly to get_wireless_link_quality for normalized diagnosis. It stops short of an explicit 'prefer X when Y' rule for the other ~80 sibling tools, but the context given is strong.

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