carrierroute_dump

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only says 'Dump' which implies a read operation, but it does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, requires no permissions, or has no side effects. The agent is left to infer safety.

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 of 9 words, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no unnecessary information. It is 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?

An output schema exists, so return values are covered. The description is adequate for a simple dump tool, but it lacks context such as whether the dump is of the current runtime state or if it triggers any internal events.

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 no parameters (0 params), so baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by specifying the content of the dump (carriers, domains, prefixes, hosts), which is helpful beyond the empty schema.

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 states 'Dump loaded carrier route tables (carriers, domains, prefixes, hosts).' It uses a specific verb and resource, and lists the components dumped, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like carrierroute_activate_host which modify state.

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 provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives like carrierroute_reload or carrierroute_activate_host. The description only states what it does, not the appropriate context or conditions for its use.

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