routing_table

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

The description only discloses that the tool returns both active and static routes. Without annotations, it fails to mention read-only nature, required privileges, or any side effects, leaving essential behavioral traits unknown.

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 extremely concise, consisting of a single sentence. While front-loaded with key information, it could be slightly restructured to include a verb for better clarity.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally complete for a simple list tool. However, it does not specify whether it returns IPv4 only or includes IPv6, which is ambiguous given sibling 'ipv6_routes'.

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?

There are no parameters, so schema coverage is 100% trivially. The description adds no parameter information since none exist, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 'IP routing table (active & static)' clearly identifies the resource and its scope, making the tool's purpose clear. However, it lacks a verb like 'list' or 'show', which is common for retrieval tools, reducing absolute clarity.

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 versus sibling tools like 'add_static_route' or 'ipv6_routes'. The description never mentions alternatives or exclusions.

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