rir_route_stability

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true), the description adds valuable domain context: defining what a stable route means (no withdrawal/re-announcement cycles), explaining causes of flapping (hardware, misconfiguration, DDoS), and outlining consequences (CPU load, convergence delays). It mentions the RIPE Stat data source. It could be improved by noting any rate limits or caching behavior.

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 structure is efficient and well-organized: one sentence for purpose, two sentences for domain context (stability definition and flapping implications), then structured Args/Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place—no tautological filler. The Returns section concisely maps the output schema to user-meaningful metrics (stability score, uptime %, timeline).

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?

Given the presence of an output schema and the tool's moderate complexity (single prefix analysis), the description is complete. It covers the operational domain (BGP routing), input requirements (CIDR format, time windows), and output interpretation (score 0-100, event timeline). No gaps remain that would impede correct 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?

With 0% schema description coverage for the nested parameters (prefix, hours, response_format have no schema descriptions), the description fully compensates. It provides critical semantics: example format ('1.1.1.0/24'), constraint explanations ('default 24, max 168 = 7 days'), and valid option values ('markdown' or 'json'), effectively documenting all three parameters that the schema leaves undocumented.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Analyse') and clear resource ('BGP route stability for a prefix'), including the data source ('RIPE Stat routing-history data'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'rir_check_bgp_status' or 'rir_prefix_history' by specifically focusing on stability/flapping analysis over time windows, and defines what constitutes a stable route versus flapping behavior.

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?

Clear context is provided for when to use the tool: investigating route flapping that 'can indicate hardware failure, misconfiguration, or DDoS.' It explains the operational impact (router CPU load, convergence delays). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this over siblings like 'rir_prefix_history' or 'rir_check_bgp_status', though the focus on stability metrics implicitly suggests the use case.

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