Runs display ip routing-table on a Huawei eNSP device to verify routes, with optional protocol filtering (e.g., OSPF, static) for checking expected network paths.
执行 display ip routing-table，可按 protocol 过滤（如 ospf static）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| protocol | No | ||
| session_id_or_name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It notes the exact IOS command executed, which is useful, but says nothing about requiring an active/connected session, read-only safety, or what happens on an invalid protocol filter.
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?
A single tight sentence with the primary action front-loaded and the optional filter trailing. It wastes no words, though the brevity contributes to the transparency gaps.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The description is adequate for a simple read command, but omits the session prerequisite and the meaning of the unrequired/nullable protocol default.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the protocol filter well with concrete examples (``ospf``, ``static``), but leaves session_id_or_name completely unaddressed and does not state default behavior for protocol.
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?
States a specific action (verifying routes by running ``display ip routing-table``) and the resource (routing table). This separates it from siblings like ensp_verify_ospf or ensp_verify_vlan, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus ensp_verify_ospf, ensp_send_command, or ensp_get_running_config. Usage is only implied by the fact that it runs a routing-table display.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.