monitor_router_ipv4

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only, non-destructive operation. Description does not explicitly state side effects or permissions, but given the read nature and presence of output schema, it is reasonably transparent.

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?

Single, front-loaded sentence with no superfluous words. Every word adds value.

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 tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It might benefit from mentioning the return format, but the output schema covers that.

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% and the description adds no additional meaning beyond the parameter's schema description. Baseline 3 as description does not compensate.

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?

Clear verb 'Get' and resource 'active IPv4 routing table (all routes in the FIB)' precisely states what the tool does. Distinguishes from sibling tools like monitor_router_ipv6 (IPv6) and monitor_router_lookup (lookup).

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 clearly indicates the tool retrieves the full routing table, but does not explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives. However, sibling tools have distinct functions (e.g., IPv6, lookup), making usage context inferable.

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