list_static_routes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It clearly implies a non-mutating read ("retrieves", "list") and enumerates what comes back (destinations, gateways, interfaces, distances, status), which is valuable given there is no output schema. It does not address permissions/auth needs, pagination, or behavior when no static routes exist.

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?

Well front-loaded: the purpose sentence comes first, followed by elaboration and then returns. The Parameters block largely duplicates a 100%-covered schema, which is minor waste, while the Returns block earns its place because there is no output schema.

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 two-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, both parameters, and the shape of the returned data. The remaining gap is routing relative to sibling routing tools and any failure/empty-result behavior.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description restates them but does add one piece of meaning beyond the schema: vdom is optional and falls back to the device default, which is not stated in the schema's "Virtual Domain" description. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ("List all static routes configured on a FortiGate device") and clarifies the scope as "manually configured" routes from the routing table, which usefully separates it from dynamic/policy routes. It never names the siblings it should be distinguished from, though, notably get_routing_table, list_policy_routes, and list_ipv6_routes.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_routing_table (full routing table) or lookup_route (finding the route for a destination). The purpose sentence implies the usage, but with many closely related routing tools in the sibling list, the absence of any routing guidance is a real gap.

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