list_static_routes

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares the operation as read-only, and the description's 'list' action is consistent. The description adds minimal context beyond the annotation (only the 'all' scope), without disclosing ordering, pagination, or other behavioral traits. No contradiction exists.

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 description is a single concise sentence in Chinese, with no filler or redundant details. It is front-loaded and directly states the operation.

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-parameter, read-only list operation with an output schema provided, the description is largely sufficient. It could benefit from noting the distinction from get_routing_table, but that gap is more related to usage guidance than completeness.

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?

The tool accepts zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter meanings. The baseline of 4 applies when there are no parameters, and the schema confirms no parameters are required.

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 uses the specific verb '列出' (list) with resource '静态路由规则' (static route rules), and the word '所有' (all) clarifies scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_static_route, delete_static_route, and get_routing_table.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_routing_table or get_ipv6_config. No exclusions, prerequisites, or selection criteria are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name.

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