list_routes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context—it does not disclose whether the full table is returned by default, whether active_only changes the result set, or any performance or permission considerations. The phrase 'IPv4 routing table' merely restates the tool's scope.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It earns its place by stating exactly what the tool does, making it appropriately concise.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional boolean parameter, read-only, output schema present), the description still falls short because it fails to explain the parameter's effect or any filtering behavior. Without reading the schema, an agent cannot know that active_only defaults to false or what it filters. The output schema likely describes the return shape, but the description is incomplete for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must explain the active_only parameter, but it does not. An agent cannot infer what 'active_only' means (e.g., only routes that are currently up) from the description, leaving the parameter's semantics entirely to the schema's property name.

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 the specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource as the 'IPv4 routing table', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_ip_addresses and list_interfaces. The tool's purpose is 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 provides no guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as list_ip_addresses or list_interfaces. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, so an agent receives no decision support beyond the purpose statement.

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