get_router_details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves configuration details but doesn't describe what 'detailed configuration' includes (e.g., settings, status, metadata), whether it's a read-only operation, potential error conditions, or response format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely returns structured data about network infrastructure.

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 description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence earns its place by conveying essential information.

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?

Given the complexity of router configuration and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'detailed configuration' entails, how the data is returned, or any behavioral aspects like permissions or side effects. For a tool that likely returns technical details, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 100%, with clear documentation for both parameters ('router_name' and optional 'provider'). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, but the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Get detailed configuration') and target resource ('for a specific router'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_routers' by focusing on a single router's details rather than listing all routers. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_service_details' or 'get_traefik_overview' beyond the resource type.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose 'get_router_details' over 'list_routers' (for details vs. listing) or 'get_service_details' (for router vs. service details), nor does it specify prerequisites like authentication or context requirements. Usage is implied by the name but not explicitly stated.

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