tc_route

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: READ operations are unguarded and never persist; WRITE operations are guarded and require a specific confirm parameter. It also clarifies that route changes are not auto-activated and that the tool does not target the safety system, providing crucial context for safe operation.

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 well-organized with clear sections (READ/WRITE, action details, notes) and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Each sentence adds value, covering behavior, prerequisites, and return formats without unnecessary verbosity.

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?

Despite the complexity (16 parameters, multiple actions, no output schema), the description is comprehensive. It covers return formats for each action (e.g., targets list for broadcast_search, found object for search_host), prerequisites, side effects (engineering project vs live target), and exclusions (safety system). All critical aspects are addressed.

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 input schema has 0% schema description coverage, but the description compensates by explaining which parameters are relevant for each action (e.g., broadcast_search uses timeoutMs, add_route requires remoteIpAddr or remoteHostName). This adds meaning beyond the raw schema, effectively documenting parameter semantics.

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 it 'ADS routes via the System Manager TIRR (Routes) node' and distinguishes between READ (non-persistent searches) and WRITE (guarded route addition) operations. The specific actions (list, broadcast_search, search_host, add_route, add_project_route) are enumerated, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use each action: READ actions are unguarded, transient searches; WRITE actions require confirmation and are intentionally NO-OP by default. It also explains prerequisites (e.g., version requirements for search_host) and notes that changes affect the engineering project but not the live target, guiding appropriate usage.

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