router_route_map_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'list all' implying a read-only operation, but omits details on authentication needs, rate limits, side effects, pagination, or error behavior. The presence of an output schema partially covers return format, but transparency is minimal.

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 of 14 words, front-loading the core action. Every word is informative, with no redundancy or superfluous content. Highly efficient.

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 param, output schema present), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context about the broader routing domain and how route-maps compare to sibling tools. Additional guidance on when to use this list vs. other routing lists would improve completeness.

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% coverage for its single parameter (vdom) with a description explaining its defaults and usage. The tool description does not add any parameter information beyond that, so it meets the baseline for schema coverage without added value.

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 clearly states 'List all route-maps', providing a specific verb and resource. The parenthetical adds context on usage (route filtering and attribute modification). However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling tools like router_policy_list or router_access_list_list, which are also list operations for routing policies.

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. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context about selecting route-maps over other routing list tools. The description implies usage for listing route-maps but offers no decision support.

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