get_router_data

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two important behaviors: sensitive values are redacted, and the return includes a source/result pair plus an explanation when the web interface responded. It omits error behavior for unknown names, permission requirements, and confirmation that the operation is read-only beyond the verb 'Read.'

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and with zero filler. The final clause about the web interface answering is slightly cryptic but still earns its place by describing return behavior.

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 read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essentials: what it reads, what is redacted, and roughly what is returned. Missing details on failure modes and the meaning of 'source' keep it from being fully complete.

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 coverage is 0%, so the schema only declares a bare string 'name.' The description partially compensates by clarifying that it is a single named value and by pointing to list_reads for valid names, but it does not describe the expected naming format or case sensitivity.

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: 'Read one named value from the Deco,' which is clear and actionable. It implicitly distinguishes itself from get_router_data_unredacted via the redaction note and from list_reads via the pointer, though it never names the unredacted sibling explicitly.

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?

Provides a prerequisite by directing the agent to list_reads to discover valid names, which is useful usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over get_router_data_unredacted or router_snapshot, leaving selection to inference.

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