get_routes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no statement that this is a read-only lookup, no explanation of how the 'detailed' flag changes behavior or cost. With an output schema present, return values need not be described, but the operation's behavioral profile is left blank.

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?

It is a single economical fragment with zero padding, but that brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than deliberate front-loading of useful information.

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 simple parameterless read with an output schema already defining the return shape, the definition is barely sufficient. It omits what 'detailed' toggles and any indication of when this data is relevant, which an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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 single optional 'detailed' boolean is undocumented in both the schema and the description. The description adds no meaning beyond the parameter's self-evident name, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 phrase 'Routing table of the Pi-hole host' names the exact resource returned, so an agent can tell what data it gets. It is a noun fragment rather than a verb+resource statement, and it offers no differentiation from look-alike siblings such as get_gateway, get_interfaces, or get_system_info, which is why it falls short of a 5.

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 when-to-use guidance at all. The description never says when to reach for this instead of get_gateway or get_interfaces, nor what the optional 'detailed' mode is for, leaving the agent to guess from the name alone.

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