opnsense_route_list

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It correctly identifies the operation as a non-destructive list. However, it does not disclose any behavioral traits such as output format, pagination, or authentication requirements. For a parameterless tool, the description is adequate but not detailed.

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 sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. No unnecessary words or information, achieving maximum conciseness.

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 tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description provides the essential information. However, it lacks context about the return format or any potential limitations (e.g., only static routes, not dynamic). The sibling tools offer sufficient contextual clues but the description alone is minimally complete.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific information because none are needed. This is appropriate.

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?

Description states 'List all configured static routes,' clearly indicating the verb (list), resource (static routes), and scope (all configured). It distinguishes from sibling tools like opnsense_route_add and opnsense_route_delete, but could improve by contrasting with opnsense_diag_routes which shows the 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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. However, the name and description imply it is the appropriate tool for listing static routes. The presence of sibling tools like opnsense_route_gateway_list and opnsense_diag_routes suggests alternatives, but the description does not address them.

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