mikrotik_get_routes

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden. It simply states 'Get IP routing table', which implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose any potential side effects, prerequisites, or what the returned data contains. This lacks the context needed for an agent to fully anticipate tool behavior.

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 sentence consisting of six words, efficiently conveying the tool's purpose. There is no redundant information or filler, making it appropriately concise.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, and the description provides enough to understand its basic function. It lacks details about the return format or any additional behavioral constraints, but for a straightforward read operation, the brevity is acceptable. This is slightly above minimum viability given the simplicity.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for the sole parameter (device_id: 'Mikrotik device ID'), so the schema already documents the parameter. The description adds no extra meaning beyond that, which aligns with the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('IP routing table') along with the platform ('Mikrotik'), making it clear what the tool does. It also distinguishes from siblings like mikrotik_get_interfaces and mikrotik_get_firewall by specifying the routing table.

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 implies usage when one needs the IP routing table from a Mikrotik device, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives or provide exclusions. There is no mention of related tools or conditions that would make this the appropriate choice.

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