Пакетно применить маршруты из .bat-файла

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

The description discloses several important behaviors beyond the annotations: the file is not executed by a system interpreter, only a whitelisted grammar is parsed, any unrecognized line fails the whole batch before application, and dryRun returns RCI payloads without sending them. This is especially valuable because the annotations only say the operation is not read-only; the description clarifies the actual safety and failure semantics.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the primary action first, then the security/failure model, then the dryRun behavior. Each sentence provides distinct useful information without repetition or fluff.

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?

The tool is a mutating batch operation with no output schema, and the description covers key context: supported grammar, fail-closed behavior, and dry-run semantics. The only noticeable gap is that the normal (non-dryRun) return/result shape is not described at all, so an agent is left to infer what happens after successful application beyond the act itself.

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 the baseline is 3 and the description is not required to compensate. The description adds a small nuance by explaining that dryRun returns 'all RCI payloads', but the parameter meanings for filePath and confirm are sufficiently covered by the schema and not expanded further in the description.

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 action: 'Читает .bat-файл, разбирает его ограниченной грамматикой... и применяет построчно'. It names the supported grammar (ROUTE ADD/DELETE, VPN BIND/UNBIND), which differentiates it from single-route sibling tools. The batch-oriented scope is explicit and 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 makes it clear that this is a batch file processor, so the typical use case is implied. However, it does not explicitly state when an agent should choose this over the single-route siblings like add_route or remove_route, nor does it provide any when-not-to-use guidance. Usage is therefore inferred rather than explicitly routed.

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