list_ipv6_routes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. 'Show' implies a read-only operation and the path suggests a monitoring command, but it does not explicitly state that it is safe, what permissions are needed, or what the response format looks like. Some behavioral context is present but minimal.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and the underlying path.

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 simple list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It could be slightly improved by noting that it is read-only or what the routing table output contains, but it is sufficient for an agent to call 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 both parameters fully. The description adds no additional meaning about device_id or vdom beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline for high-coverage schemas.

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 states a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('IPv6 routing table'), and the explicit IPv6 qualifier distinguishes it from the sibling get_routing_table (likely IPv4). The monitor/router/ipv6 path further clarifies scope.

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 when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives are provided. It does not mention when to choose this over get_routing_table or how it relates to other routing tools, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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