listRoutes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'List' clearly implies a read-only operation returning configured routes, but the description does not disclose response shape, pagination, ordering, or required permissions. For a simple list operation this is adequate but still leaves gaps.

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 a single, focused sentence with no filler. The action, resource, and scope are front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 listing tool with no output schema or annotations, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it omits details about the siteId requirement and the return format, which an agent would need for fully reliable 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% and the description does not explain siteId's format, source, or requiredness. The phrase 'for a site' connects the parameter to a concept, but it does not compensate for the lack of schema-level documentation, especially since the schema marks no parameters as required.

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 the verb (List), the resource (static routes), and the scope (configured for a site). This distinguishes it from the many sibling tools that operate on different resources such as clients, devices, or firewall ACLs.

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 about when to use this tool instead of other network/route-related tools, nor how to obtain the siteId. The description only implies usage context through the phrase 'for a site' without offering any explicit selection criteria or alternatives.

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