ncloud_get_routes

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

The description does not add behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It does not mention what information the routes contain (e.g., destination, target), pagination, or any side effects. Since annotations already declare its safety, the description misses an opportunity to clarify return format or constraints.

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, focused phrase that conveys the core purpose without any redundant words. It is front-loaded and efficient, earning its place by directly stating what the tool does.

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 absence of an output schema, the description does not inform the agent about the return structure, possible fields, or pagination. For a simple list tool, it is too minimal; the agent may need to infer behavior from the name and schema alone.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description implies that the route table is identified by the parameters, but adds no extra meaning about format, example values, or relationships between parameters. Adequate but not helpful beyond the schema.

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 the verb 'List' and the resource 'routes', and specifies the scope 'in a specific route table'. It distinguishes the tool from general 'list route tables' or 'get route table detail' tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like ncloud_get_route_table_subnets.

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 (e.g., ncloud_get_route_table_detail, ncloud_add_route). There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context hints for the agent to decide between similar networking tools.

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