router_access_list_list

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action without detailing side effects, permissions, performance implications, or what constitutes a 'router access list'. The brevity forces reliance on assumed 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 that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. It is appropriately sized for a straightforward list operation, with no wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, output schema exists), the description is minimally adequate but lacks depth. It does not explain the scope of 'all' (e.g., across VDOMs or global), potential size of results, or any caveats. The output schema may cover return format, but behavioral context remains sparse.

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 covers 100% of parameters (vdom) with a clear description. The tool description adds no extra semantic value beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding of the parameter's usage.

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 'List all router access lists (ACL for routing)' clearly states the verb (list), the resource (router access lists), and provides a clarifying note (ACL for routing). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like router_policy_list or router_prefix_list_list, which manage different routing entities.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as router_community_list_list or router_route_map_list. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, limitations, or recommended scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name.

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