get_routing_table

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

With no annotations, the description does carry the burden, and it does disclose that the result is the active table (not the config) and enumerates the returned fields. It says nothing about permissions, VDOM scoping pitfalls, read-only nature, or table size/performance on large routing tables.

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?

Front-loaded with a one-line purpose, then Parameters and Returns sections. The Returns block earns its place because there is no output schema; the Parameters block mildly repeats the schema but stays brief.

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?

For a two-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter meaning, and the shape of the return values. Only sibling routing and operational caveats (size, VDOM requirement) are missing.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds the meaningful detail that vdom is optional and falls back to the device default, which the schema only conveys via default=null. That is a small but genuine addition beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Get the current routing table") and scopes it to the active table including static, dynamic and connected routes, which implicitly separates it from config-oriented siblings like list_static_routes or get_bgp_config. It never names a sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Usage is only implied: the word "current" and "installed" suggests live operational state rather than configuration, which helps against list_static_routes, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of lookup_route as the per-destination alternative.

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