get_routing_table

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly says 'Read-only via this behavior, which tells and agent the operation has no side effects and uses a standard kernel command. It does not discuss privilege or failure cases, but for a zero-parameter read-only tool this is sufficient.

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: the first sentence states what is returned and the fields included, and the second adds scope and intended usage. Every sentence carries substantive information with no filler.

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 zero-param read-only tool with an output schema, the description fully covers the purpose, the data of contents, the underlying command, and the intended use case. Nothing an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly is missing.

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 schema is an empty object with zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. There is nothing for the description to document; the description's mention of the underlying command adds relevant context but no per-parameter information is needed. The 0-params baseline of 4 applies.

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 and resource ('Returns the kernel routing table') and enumerates the returned fields (destination, gateway, interface, proto, scope, metric, MTU). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling network tool like get_network_info and get_network_connections by scoping to the routing table and explicitly naming that the command.

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?

'Use for network path and gateway troubleshooting' states a clear context for when to call this tool. It does not go far as naming sibling alternatives or exclusions, but the context is specific enough for an agent to select it for routing-table interrogations.

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