list_routes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description adds no behavioral context beyond stating the obvious list operation. It does not mention filtering capabilities, response scope, or any limitations, providing no extra transparency beyond the annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence that wastes no words. It clearly states the action and target resource, making it highly concise and well-structured for the information it conveys.

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?

The tool has 9 filter parameters and many related sibling tools, but the description provides no operational context about filtering, device targeting, or how this differs from get_routing_table. The output schema covers return values, but the description is insufficient for an agent to understand the full scope and appropriate use of the tool.

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 description does not mention any of the 9 parameters (dst_filter, active_only, static_only, etc.), and schema description coverage is 0%. With such low coverage, the description must compensate by explaining parameter meaning, but it provides none, making the parameters no clearer than their property names.

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 a specific verb 'Lists' and identifies the resource as 'routes in MikroTik routing table', making the core function clear. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_routing_table or get_route, which could also be about retrieving route information.

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 versus alternatives such as get_routing_table, get_route, or add_route. No exclusions, prerequisites, or context for the filter parameters are provided.

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