vrfsGetFabricStaticRoutes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't cover aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or what the response format looks like (e.g., list structure). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to invoke it effectively.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Get the list of static routes'), making it easy to parse quickly. No unnecessary words or redundancy are present.

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?

Given the complexity (a read operation with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return values, error conditions, or behavioral traits like pagination or authentication. For a tool that likely returns structured data, more context is needed to help an agent use it correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters (fabricId, vrfId, candidate, includeMetadata) with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying a list operation, which is minimal value. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Get the list of static routes' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('static routes'), but it's vague about scope and context. It doesn't specify that this is for a particular fabric and VRF, which the parameters indicate, nor does it distinguish it from sibling tools like 'vrfsGetFabricStaticRoute' (singular) or 'vrfsAddFabricStaticRoutes'.

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 alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'vrfsGetFabricStaticRoute' (for a single route) or 'vrfsAddFabricStaticRoutes' (for adding routes), nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for usage beyond what's implied by the parameters.

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