get_routing_table

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and it clearly states the exact command executed ('show ip route'), making the tool's behavior transparent for a read-only show operation. It does not detail potential failure modes or prerequisites, but the command itself implies a non-destructive, information-retrieval behavior.

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 sentence, immediately states the purpose, and includes the exact command. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 simple show command with a single required parameter and an output schema available, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does and the exact operation performed. The presence of an output schema removes the need to document return values, and the command reference provides complete operational context.

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%, and the description does not mention or explain the 'device' parameter. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, but the description fails to add any meaning beyond the schema, leaving the tool to rely entirely on the parameter's implicit role.

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 uses a specific verb ('Show') and clearly identifies the resource ('IPv4 routing table') with the exact Cisco command ('show ip route'). This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_arp_table or get_ospf_neighbors.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as run_show_command or other routing-related tools. There are no contextual cues or exclusions provided.

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