List routes

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so safety is covered. The description adds the meaningful scope fact that it returns the routing table and can be narrowed, but says nothing about result volume, pagination, or the default device fallback that affects what data comes back.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with the resource front-loaded and the optional modes trailing. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned and the optional filters. The only gap is the default-200/pagination and default-device behavior, which the schema partially covers.

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 coverage is 60% and already documents limit, device and the dstAddress example. The description only adds loose meaning for the undocumented ipv6 and activeOnly flags ('IPv4 (or IPv6)', 'only active routes') without formats or edge cases.

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?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (IPv4/IPv6 routing table) with the optional narrowing filters named inline. It is clearly the routes tool among the siblings, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with generic readers like mikrotik_print.

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 optional 'activeOnly' and 'single destination' modes imply when the filters are used, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-to-use-an-alternative guidance or prerequisite note (e.g. that device defaults to the first configured device).

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