List Static Routes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond restating the operation: no note on pagination, ordering, filtering, or whether all rule types are included. With annotations carrying the burden, this is a minimal pass rather than a contradiction.

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 short sentence with zero waste and the resource front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a zero-param list tool, though it is so terse that it conveys no additional structure.

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 zero-param read tool with an output schema and a readOnlyHint annotation, naming the resource is close to sufficient – return values are covered by the output schema. The only real gap is disambiguation from get_routing_table.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is no per-parameter semantics to document; the baseline for a no-param tool applies. The description correctly implies an unfiltered listing.

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 states a clear verb+resource: '列出所有静态路由规则' (list all static route rules). An agent can tell this is a read of static route rules rather than a mutation. However, it offers no differentiation from siblings such as get_routing_table, add_static_route, or delete_static_route, so the sibling boundary is left to name inference.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternative named. The agent must infer that this is the listing counterpart to add_static_route/delete_static_route and distinct from get_routing_table purely from the tool name.

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