Список маршрутов

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It states that the tool exposes a static route table, implying a read operation, but it does not disclose output shape, ordering, pagination, or whether the result includes only active routes. For a no-parameter list tool this is minimally informative but not fully transparent.

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 short and front-loaded, using only one meaningful phrase. It avoids redundancy with the title while adding the key qualifiers 'static' and 'router', but it could still afford a second clause describing the output.

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 parameterless tool this is close to adequate, but the absence of annotations and an output schema leaves the return format unstated. A simple listing tool should at least indicate whether it returns all static routes and in what form; the current description only names the subject.

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 has zero parameters, so the description need not clarify parameter semantics. A baseline of 4 is appropriate because there is nothing for the schema or description to document.

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 identifies the result as the router's static route table, which clearly maps to the tool name list_routes and distinguishes it from route-mutating siblings like add_route and remove_route. It is concise and resource-specific, though it does not explicitly state that it returns or lists entries.

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 instead of sibling listing tools such as list_devices, get_interfaces, or list_vpn_interfaces. The context signals make the tool self-evident as a route reader, but the description provides no explicit usage context or exclusions.

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