get_routing_table

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only operation' while adding behavioral context: the table is live, lists each route with destination, next-hop, interface, and source/metric. This goes beyond the annotation by describing what the result contains without contradicting it.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose, read-only clarification, alternative-tool routing, then parameter notes. Every sentence earns its place, and the alternative-tool sentence adds significant selection value without bloat.

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 read-only tool with zero required parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough to call it correctly: it names the returned route fields, clarifies the live nature, and routes the agent to get_networks for configuration-level queries. Nothing necessary for correct invocation is 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 description coverage is 100%, and the Args section merely restates the same information already present in the input schema: site defaults to 'default', device is optional and defaults to null. No additional semantics such as value formats, examples, or edge-case behavior are provided, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Return the live Layer-3 routing table for a site's gateway.' It also names sibling get_networks to differentiate active forwarding paths from configured VLAN/subnet definitions, making the tool's scope immediately distinguishable.

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 explicitly states the intended use: 'verify static and learned routes' via the live routing table. It also provides a clear alternative: 'Use get_networks to inspect configured VLAN/subnet definitions rather than active forwarding paths.' This gives an agent explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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