get_routing_table

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action and does not mention side effects, permission requirements, error behavior, or whether the namespace parameter affects output in a surprising way. The word 'structured' hints at output format but is not a behavioral disclosure.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose, and contains no filler. The Args section is compact and provides the essential parameter detail in a clear format.

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?

The output schema exists, so return values do not need to be described. However, the description lacks any context about when to use this tool and gives no behavioral safety cues (e.g., explicitly confirming it is read-only). For a simple getter with one optional parameter, it is mostly adequate but still leaves gaps in usage and behavior.

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 compensate. It does: 'namespace: Optional network namespace to query (default: root namespace)' explains the parameter's purpose, optionality, and default value. This is sufficient for the single parameter, though it could add format examples or validation rules.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('structured IP routing table'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_network_info or get_tcp_connections, which target different data, even without explicitly naming them.

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 use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. An agent must infer usage purely from the tool name, since no context is given about scenarios where this tool is the right choice.

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