get_routing_table

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true) already convey safety, but the description adds nothing about behavior such as error handling, return format expectations, or defaults like active_only=true. It lacks any behavioral context beyond what annotations already state.

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, which is concise, but it's under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It doesn't earn its place by adding value beyond the tool name; it's a tautological restatement.

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 only one sentence and no parameter explanation, the description is incomplete despite the presence of an output schema. It doesn't cover how to select a device, what 'routing table' means in this context, or how filtering parameters interact, leaving the agent with significant ambiguity.

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 0% and the description does not explain any of the four parameters (device, table_name, active_only, protocol_filter). Parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory but not fully, and the description fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 a specific routing table' clearly identifies the action (gets) and resource (routing table), but 'specific' is vague and it doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like get_route or list_routes. It's understandable but lacks specificity about scope or 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus get_route, list_routes, or other routing tools. No context about device selection, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is preferred. The description is a bare statement with no usage direction.

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