Get device routes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a small domain nuance — advertised vs enabled routes — but says nothing about authentication requirements, empty results, or how disabled routes are represented.

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?

One compact sentence that is front-loaded with the operation and resource, with no filler or redundant 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 one-parameter read-only getter, the description covers the resource, the input requirement, and the output scope in one sentence. No output schema exists, but the description states what is returned (advertised and enabled subnet routes); a minor gap is that it does not hint at the response shape or possible absence of disabled 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the deviceId parameter is already well described with an example and a warning that nodeKey must not be used. The description contributes no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 names the exact operation — retrieving subnet routes for a device — and adds two useful distinctions: routes the device advertises and routes that are enabled. This differentiates it from related siblings like tailscale_set_device_routes and tailscale_get_device.

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 verb and object make the read-only retrieval context clear, and the description scopes the operation to routes specifically, which an agent can infer is for inspection rather than modification. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name tailscale_set_device_routes as the write alternative.

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