List configured static routes

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: configured routes are not necessarily routes in use, DHCP default routes never appear, and named address objects are resolved to CIDRs with the object name preserved. It does not discuss authentication or rate limits, but for a read-only list operation the added data-scoping behavior is substantial.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds the distinction from get_routing_table and the object-resolution behavior in a logical order. Every sentence carries useful information without redundancy or filler.

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?

With an output schema, full schema descriptions for all four optional parameters, and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description only needs to add context that the structured fields cannot convey. It does so by clarifying the configured-vs-in-use distinction, the DHCP exclusion, and the address-object resolution behavior, leaving no essential gap for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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%, so the schema already documents vdom, limit, offset, and target thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, which makes the baseline score of 3 appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List configured static routes') and immediately distinguishes it from the sibling get_routing_table by explaining the configured-vs-in-use difference. It also excludes DHCP-assigned default routes, so an agent can tell exactly what this tool returns versus what it does not.

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?

It explicitly names the alternative tool and the condition that selects it: 'Use get_routing_table for what the appliance is actually forwarding on.' It further clarifies when a route will not appear here (DHCP-assigned default routes), which is a clear when-not-to-use signal.

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