Get Routing Table

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

With readOnlyHint=true already covering the safety profile, the description adds genuine context beyond annotations: the device lacks static_rt_table_ipv4/ipv6 (returns error 1003) and the real-time table lives under static_rt/ TYPE=data. These are useful operational caveats, though return format is left to the output schema.

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?

Short and front-loaded with the core purpose, then the sibling routing and the data-location caveat. Slightly developer-facing (raw API field names like static_rt/TYPE=data) but every line carries actionable 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 read-only getter with a present output schema and a fully documented parameter, the description supplies the sibling disambiguation and the key behavioral caveat. Little is missing; only return-value explanation is (appropriately) left to the output schema.

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 100% and the single parameter (ip_type, 'v4'/'v6') is already documented in the schema. The description adds no ip_type syntax or default guidance, so this is the baseline 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb and resource ('查看当前路由表') and immediately disambiguates from the sibling list_static_routes by clarifying that this returns the real-time routing table (static_rt TYPE=data) rather than static route configuration. An agent can distinguish it from the static-route tools without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use list_static_routes for existing static routes, use this tool for the live routing table. The when-not condition and the named alternative are both present, leaving nothing to inference.

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