get_routing_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'Get routing information' without indicating whether the operation is read-only, requires specific permissions, or has any side effects. This is a significant gap.

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. It is front-loaded and minimal but lacks structure. It is appropriately sized given the tool's simplicity, though it could benefit from a brief second sentence listing key capabilities.

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?

Despite having an output schema and three parameters, the description omits important context such as what 'routing information' includes (e.g., routes, nexthops) or the fact that protocol filter supports BGP and ISIS, which is critical for correct use. It is incomplete relative to the tool's complexity.

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 100% description coverage, with detailed parameter descriptions (e.g., protocol filter values, include_details default). The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, earning the baseline score of 3.

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 states the tool retrieves routing information from a network device, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_interface_info or get_logs, which share similar naming patterns.

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 when to prefer get_mpls_info or get_vpn_info for specific routing-related data. No exclusions or context are mentioned.

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