list_reads

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a non-obvious trait: the output also tells you which reads the web-interface fallback can serve, which is genuine value beyond the schema. However, it says nothing about whether the list is static or device-dependent, its shape (flat names vs. objects), or whether it is safe/cheap to call repeatedly.

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, front-loaded with the core claim and followed by the actionable routing hint. The parenthetical category list is long but earns its place as a preview of output in the absence of an output schema, though the trailing '...' makes it slightly open-ended.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must convey enough about the response. It conveys the subject matter and the fallback annotation but not the structure of each entry (identifiers, flags, nesting), which an agent needs to consume the result without guessing.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a parameterless discovery call and requires no argument explanation.

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 names the resource (every read the router exposes) and previews the categories returned (client list, Wi-Fi config, QoS, port forwarding, DHCP, VPN, firmware), so an agent knows it is a catalog of read operations rather than a data fetch. It partially differentiates from get_router_data ('Use get_router_data to read one'), but never contrasts itself with the sibling list_writes.

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 gives an explicit routing rule: call this to discover reads, call get_router_data to actually read one. That removes the main ambiguity. It stops short of stating when-not to use it (e.g., if you already know the read name) or how it relates to the fallback path it mentions.

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