get_route_cache

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

Annotations already convey read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the verb 'gets', which merely restates the annotations. It does not describe what the route cache contains, whether it returns raw or processed data, or any quirks like caching behavior. The description does not contradict annotations, but it also provides no extra value.

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 is front-loaded with the verb and resource. It contains no filler or redundant information, and its brevity is appropriate for a simple read 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?

Although an output schema exists (which explains return values), the description is too sparse to give a complete picture. It does not explain what the route cache is, why an agent would query it, or what the 'device' parameter means. For a tool with sibling operations like flush_route_cache and get_route_statistics, the description leaves too much implicit.

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% description coverage and the description does not mention the 'device' parameter at all. The agent is given no explanation of what 'device' means, whether it is required (it has a default of null), or how it affects the result. With only the parameter name as a hint, this is insufficient for correct usage.

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 'Gets the route cache' clearly states the action (gets) and the target resource (route cache). It distinguishes itself from siblings like flush_route_cache (different action) and get_routing_table (different resource), though it doesn't explicitly call out these distinctions. The purpose is unambiguous but minimal.

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 flush_route_cache or get_route_statistics. There is no context about use cases, prerequisites, or conditions that would make this the appropriate choice. The agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.

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