opnsense_get_routes

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

Annotations already cover the safe read-only nature. The description adds the output contract (markdown vs JSON, pagination with has_more/next_offset) and the search behavior, which is valuable context beyond the annotations. It does not mention error conditions, but given the read-only hint, the transparency is adequate.

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 well-structured with clear sections: purpose, usage context, args, returns, and examples. Every part earns its place, and the examples are concise and illustrative. No fluff or redundancy.

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 read-only query tool, the description covers the what, when, parameters, output format, and pagination behavior. The annotated safety hints and the output schema in the description make this a fully self-sufficient documentation for an agent.

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?

Although the schema has descriptions for each field, the context signals indicate 0% coverage at the top level, so the description's Args section compensates by restating all parameters with defaults and meanings. The examples also show how to map natural-language queries to search values, adding practical semantics beyond the schema.

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 tool gets the firewall's active routing table, including default, policy, and VPN routes. This verb+resource combination is specific and distinct from all sibling tools, none of which deal with routing tables.

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?

Provides two concrete diagnostic scenarios: 'traffic reaches the firewall but leaves the wrong way' and 'checking that a VPN tunnel installed the routes it should have'. It gives clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use.

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