appliance-list-staticroutes

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

With no annotations, the description only states it is 'read-only'. This discloses non-destructive behavior but omits other traits like pagination, rate limits, or confirmation of no side effects beyond the basic safety. For a read operation, the burden is not fully met.

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 with a parenthetical, containing no fluff. Every word serves a purpose, making it highly efficient.

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 list tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and read-only nature. However, it does not hint at the return format or field list, which would aid the agent. Sibling tools imply similar operations but lack contrast here.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description does not elaborate on parameters beyond what the schema already provides. No additional semantic value is added.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'static routes' with a specific device scope 'MX or teleworker network'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like switch-list-staticroutes by specifying the network type. The read-only note clarifies the action.

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 implies usage for listing static routes on MX/teleworker networks but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like switch-list-staticroutes. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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