check_route_path

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, which align with a check operation. However, the description adds no further behavioral context, such as how source or routing_mark affect the check, whether it validates connectivity, or what constitutes a successful path. The bar is lowered because of the annotations, but the description still contributes almost nothing beyond them.

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, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It repeats language from the tool name ('route path', 'destination') and lacks the depth needed to be practical. This is not an example of efficient, information-dense writing.

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?

With four parameters, no parameter descriptions, and a sparse one-line description, the tool is not adequately described. Even though an output schema exists, the description fails to clarify what inputs are expected and what the check actually does, leaving the agent to guess.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only references 'destination' (the required parameter) but provides no explanation of optional parameters (device, source, routing_mark) or how they interact. This is a significant gap for a tool with four parameters, making it impossible for an agent to correctly set optional arguments.

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 verb 'checks' and specifies the resource 'route path' to a destination, which clearly conveys the core function. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_route or get_routing_table, but the operation is distinct enough. A minor deduction for lack of sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives such as get_route, list_routes, or get_routing_table. The description merely states what it does without providing context, exclusions, or recommendations.

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