tailscale_device_routes_get

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

No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the basic 'get' operation. There is no mention of authentication requirements, rate limits, or the fact that this is a read-only operation. The description carries the full burden but adds minimal behavioral context.

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 that conveys the core functionality without superfluous words. It is appropriately front-loaded and efficient.

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 simple get operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but not fully complete. It does not describe the structure of the returned routes (e.g., whether it's a list, what fields are included), which would be helpful since no output schema is provided.

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 coverage is 100% (the single parameter 'deviceId' is described as 'Tailscale device ID'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. According to guidelines, when schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3, and the description does not improve upon it.

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 clearly specifies the action ('Get') and the resource ('advertised and enabled subnet routes for a device'). It distinguishes the tool from its sibling tools, particularly 'tailscale_device_routes_set' (which sets routes) and 'tailscale_device_get' (which gets general device info), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'tailscale_device_routes_set' or other device-related tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or when it should be avoided.

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